|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Milwaukee Police Confront Teenagers Accused of Beating a Man to Death; Bush Continues Push for War against Iraq
Aired October 2, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN HOST: Hello everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
Shocked investigators in Milwaukee are shaking their heads over a crime being described as inhuman. Police say eight kids already have confessed to savagely beating a handyman to death. We're going to talk about that case, which involves a child as young as 10.
Then stay tuned as a resolution authorizing force in Iraq gains momentum.
And then later, New Jersey' poet laureate writes a poem so disturbing, the governor wants him to resign.
We begin with that beating in Milwaukee. Police say a group of kids between the ages of 10 and 18 beat 36-year-old Charlie Young with baseball bats, broomsticks, shovels, a rake, and plastic cases. The assault, which took place on a porch, was so violent blood was spattered on the ceiling.
CNN correspondent Jason Carroll is standing by now in Milwaukee. Jason, what's the latest on this very disturbing case?
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, it is extremely disturbing, in fact.
A number of people in this city have already said how angry they are about what has happened. We already have some of the suspects who are appearing in juvenile court who -- here and be officially taken through the court proceedings.
I want to start out, though, by just sort of going over exactly what happened during this entire incident. It all basically began, Arthel, on Sunday night. A man by the name of Charlie Young, Jr. was walking through the north side of Milwaukee. He came across some boys, they threw an egg at them. He became angry at them for throwing that egg. He chased these boys down and actually hit one of them in the face.
Those boys then decided to retaliate. Those boys gathered more boys, some of their friends. They gathered teenagers and they looked for weapons, whatever they could find.
Happened to take a look at the police report. Here are some of the things that they found: they found a baby stroller, a milk crate, a metal pipe, a shovel, a broomstick, a tree branch. They chased Young down and then they basically beat that man to death out on a porch.
He died late Tuesday from his injuries. At this point, Arthel, we have 12 people who are in custody. The youngest, as you said, is just 10-years-old. Several, according to the police report, have admitted to taking part in some way in this crime. As I said, some have appeared in juvenile court. They're starting to go through the court proceedings.
The court commissioner yesterday could barely contain his anger when he was talking and addressing one of the suspects as well as his mother. I want you to listen in to how that court commissioner responded. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This kid and upwards of 20 other kids at 10:30, 11:00, 11:30 were running wild in the streets of Milwaukee, beating a man half to death.
Why the hell weren't these kids in bed?
No! I don't want to you say anything, mom. But it is obvious to me that you were not controlling your son. You neglected and you refused to control him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARROLL: You could see how angry he was there. That anger sort of symbolic of how the rest of this community is feeling at this time. Again, 12 are in custody. Police at this point are looking for four more.
They have their names they say it's a matter of time before they find them. Police believe some, if not all of these suspects, will end up being charged as adults -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: Jason, I know you talked to the people that live there. What have they said about the kids? Do they know anything about the boys?
CARROLL: You know, all of these boys were known throughout the neighborhood. That's first off. These boys were well known throughout the area, and then according to the police report, in terms of learning more about these backgrounds of some of these suspects, some of these young boys.
There was one of the boys -- I believe he's 13-years-old. He was arrested when he was 8 for burglary.
Another boy, about 14-years-old, he was arrested a few years before that for breaking into a car. Many of these boys have had definite run-ins with the law before. Some of the people in the neighborhood have complained about bands of children, bands of teenagers roaming through the neighborhood and causing trouble, but nothing like this has ever happened before.
NEVILLE: OK, Jason Carroll, thank you very much for that report.
And it's time now to meet today's panel.
Farai Chideya is editor and founder of popandpolitics.com and a night fellow at Stanford University.
Mark Simone is a WABC radio talk show host.
Santiago Nieves is host of "Latino Journal" on WBAI in New York.
And Delroy Murdock, a syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard news service.
I want to welcome all of you to TALKBACK LIVE.
Farai, I want to start with you today.
How could something like this happen?
FARAI CHIDEYA, EDITOR AND FOUNDER OF POPANDPOLITICS.COM: Well, I have a lot of complicated feelings about this because one of the things that came out in recent years was the whole superpredator trend about teenagers was absolutely wrong.
Teenagers are not what we think they are. They are not super predators, by and large, but they are very vulnerable to the lack of parental influence and if they're allowed to roam the streets and if they are not raised they can do terrible things.
NEVILLE: Mark, I'd like to hear your response to all of this?
MARK SIMONE, WABC TALK SHOW HOST: Well, first and foremost, you have to blame the parents. I mean, that comment was right. Why didn't they know where their kids were at 10:00 at night?
NEVILLE: Yes, Deroy?
DEROY MURDOCK, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I would say that this is sort of a classic example of mob mentality. If this had been one or two kids, they probably would have handled that egg situation differently.
You get 10 or 12 or 14 kids running around and somebody says, Let's kill him and everybody jumps into it.
I think the parental involvement question is key. And also, if these kids -- I imagine some probably were observers more than actually involved in the injuries. But those who were involved for the injuries, I think, ought to be tried for homicide.
NEVILLE: Yes, but even if they're observing why don't you try to stop something like that?
MURDOCK: Well again, that's what's difficult about mob situations. People get kind of carried away with this, which is no excuse at all. I think that they are -- that they have to bear the responsibility for this. And if this means they have to be tried as adults, so be it.
Well, there you are. Is it a mob situation, or is it the mother's fault? I think that we really have to find out about who these children are, who their parents are, what their experience is before we go around serendipity criticizing a parent like that.
We don't know the story just yet.
CHIDEYA: And in addition, let's really think about this whole trying kids as adult trend. I think that we're just setting the stage for creating supercriminals out of teenagers who are very troubled.
I've met some incredible teenagers...
NEVILLE: OK, but hang on, Farai. These guys killed someone.
CHIDEYA: Well, again, to follow up on one of the previous points.
Some of them definitely killed this gentleman, and they are murderers. Others of them may have been observers. That does not exonerate them.
But, I think that when you talk about young kids who participate in crimes, we have to talk about the possibility of rehabilitation even more than when we talk about adults. Do we really want...
NEVILLE: OK, I understand that point but the other side of that argument is if you continue to talk about rehabilitation and no punishment then...
CHIDEYA: I didn't say no punishment. I didn't say no punishment. But putting a 13-year-old, in jail where -- with adults where he will probably be raped and beaten and made into somebody's -- I won't say.
That's a recipe for disaster.
NEVILLE: And that's a deterrent for doing something so horrible.
MURDOCK: We heard in the report at the top of the show, that some of these kids already have rap sheets and if we don't keep them separate from society, they can continue to do more violent things and perhaps kill even more people.
NEVILLE: Let me go to Texas now.
Hang on for me guys, I want to go to Texas where Angelique (ph) is standing by on the phone.
Go ahead, Angelique (ph).
CALLER: Good afternoon. What I wanted to say is these children did a crime. They killed a man. That's a fact. It's not what the reasoning was behind, but it's the fact that that's what they had done. How much has the law had to do with how we treat our children and what we can say and what we can do.
NEVILLE: So, Angelique, what do you think should happen?
CALLER: The children? I think that they should be treated like someone who killed. They killed in a group. Eventually, I think we should build teenage prison-type compounds, because it seems more and more that's who's committing a lot of the crimes.
NEVILLE: Angelique, thank you very much for calling in.
I have Mike (ph) now who's in the audience, who's from Michigan.
MIKE (ph): I just have to say I think this is a clear case of the pendulum swung back in the opposite way.
The law has become so strict where parents can't even discipline their kids today, they're so afraid that the service -- the children services are going to come get them for disciplining them.
I mean, I'm afraid some of these kids -- I'm from the old school, my mother -- if I even thought about doing half the stuff I see these kids doing today, the whole neighborhood would have been up my butt.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you very much.
Listen, I have to take a break right now.
And up next, the president seems to have convinced House leaders that Saddam Hussein should face the possible use of force. But has he convinced you is still the question. We want to talk about it as TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
Tough words from President Bush today as he laid down the law to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Mr. Bush said Baghdad must comply with the U.N. Security Council demands, and he warned time is running out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Saddam must disarm, period.
If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: Now, a resolution allowing the president to use force against Iraq has been endorsed by leaders of the House as well as some U.S. Senators. Mr. Bush calls it an important show of American unity and mark, I want to start with you on this one. Are you surprised by the House's move and will it fly across the board in the Senate?
SIMONE: You can't be surprised with what the Democrats do, because they've already taken every side on this. They keep flip- flopping on this. You know, in '91 they were mad we didn't finish the job.
NEVILLE: What does that say about the Democrats? I asked you about the House, which is controlled by the Republicans.
SIMONE: Well, let's talk about this then. You know, Saddam Hussein obviously has these weapons. There's no doubt about that now. He says we can't look in the presidential palaces because we know that's where they are.
You know, how can you trust this guy to control the largest stockpile of deadly weapons in the world? Obviously, the House, when it comes time to actually vote knows that you have to give the president a blank check on this. American's safety is at risk.
NEVILLE: Santiago, your thoughts?
NIEVES: Well you know, to -- I think to send representatives of the U.N. to make a deal on the side with Iraq that the old U.N. resolution is the right way to go, and I agree with Mark, I mean, Democrats were all over the place, they should be supporting whatever the new U.N. resolution is.
You can't give credit to this president for saying what he said at the U.N. and then say he's wrong. He should have the right to do it.
SIMONE: He's made the case with specifics. The other side who says we shouldn't do it, hasn't made the case with specific arguments. That's what's missing.
I think the U.N. resolution that just passed a couple days ago, this sort of deal that's gone through, I think, is very problematic in that it's full of loopholes which allows Saddam Hussein, again, to say, Well, you can't come into my palaces and so on.
Imagine if we had that situation where, let's say, President Bush said, Well, you can inspect anywhere you want but not Camp David. Who knows what might be going on there.
This man has botulism, we know that from previous inspections, perhaps atomic materials, and we need to go to every square inch of the country and make sure none of that stuff is aimed at us or our allies or our friends around the world.
NEVILLE: And Farai, that includes the presidential palaces, correct?
CHIDEYA: I agree that the presidential palaces are a very key issue, but I also think we need to step back in this debate and really look at where we are a year after 9/11 and the war on terror.
We are essentially talking about fighting on two fronts: fighting in Iraq, doing a redux of the war that we already did in Iraq, and having Osama bin Laden at large.
I don't know that we can do that and also fight on a third front, which is the U.S. economy in decline, corporations losing all credibility with the American public, the stock market in the toilet.
I really feel that right now the United States is facing a sort of Roman Empire situation, where we are overextending ourselves, becoming global policemen and not giving ourselves any credibility in the global community.
MURDOCK: I do think removing Saddam Hussein from power is part of the war on terror. There is reportage, or information from Czechoslovakia that Mohammed Atta actually met with an Iraqi diplomat, I believe in April 2001. There may, in fact, be a link from Iraq and 9/11.
And certainly there is money from Iraq, $25, 000 per homicide bomber on the West Bank.
CHIDEYA: The key funders for al Qaeda are Saudi Arabia, which are technically our allies, and of course, President Bush put members of the bin Laden family on a plane after 9/11 back to Saudi Arabia. So, I think that we have to look at multiple intersections of our own interests and oil interests and what we and the presidency do and don't support.
MURDOCK: You're absolutely right.
CHIDEYA: It's a very complicated issue here.
MURDOCK: The Saudis are horrible and we claim that they're our allies and we have sort of a sadomasochistic relationship. The meaner they are to us, the nicer we are to them.
And, I think, Farai, you're absolutely right, Saudi Arabia is a huge part of this problem and I wish the White House were more honest about calling them the enemies that they really are.
SIMONE: You know, and you're also taking a huge gamble assuming that al Qaeda and Iraq and Saddam Hussein will never, at any point, team up. That Hussein will never lend weapons to terrorists.
You're taking a big gamble with our lives.
CHIDEYA: But what you're talking about here is almost thought crime. A very 1984 thing. You are trying to do what Tom Cruise did in "Minority Report," which is talk about the future crimes committed.
It's one thing to talk about weapons inspections and looking at what Saddam already has. It's another thing to talk about predicting the future, which I think is a very dangerous thing for an already overextended America to do. NIEVES: You know, speaking of predicting the future, no one is going to know by the way, what happens -- I hope that no one thinks I'm supporting any kind of war, because even the president really is not clear about what is going to happen after they install any kind of democracy.
It's been a thousand year struggle between the Shiites and the Sunnis alone.
NEVILLE: OK, I'm jumping in here -- excuse me, panel, because I need to Tawanna (ph) jump in before I go to break.
TAWANNA (ph): After September 11, all Americans were wondering why in the world do people not like us? To me, this whole Iraqi situations shows why people do not like us because of arrogance and hypocrisy.
No. 1, it's ridiculous that we're trying to bully the U.N., and No. 2, the whole idea of We're going after Saddam because he has weapons of mass destruction. Do we not?
Also, who is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons of mass destruction on other people? We have done things to our own people. We have done bad, horrible things to our own people. We would not appreciate, I may at this point -- but we would not appreciate if somebody did something to our president and took away our leader.
NEVILLE: OK, and that is the last word from Tawanna from Missouri.
Thank you for speaking out today on TALKBACK LIVE.
And up next, I'm going to read you a poem that has people fuming in New Jersey. One hint: it has to do with September 11th and Israel.
Don't go anywhere, TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break. NEVILLE: Here's a portion that has gotten under everybody skin. It says, "Who knew the World Trade Center was gonna get bombed? Who told 4,000 Israeli workers at the twin towers to stay home that day? Why did Sharon Stay Away?"
Baraka says he has nothing to apologize for. He says, The poem was meant to probe and disturb. He is refusing to resign and the governor can't fire him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMIRI BARAKA, NEW JERSEY POET LAUREATE: That's why the poem here an throughout continuously chants the question who? Who? Who? Who? Who? That is who is responsible for this horrible crime and why? It is a poem that aims to probe and disturb but there is not the slightest evidence of anti-Semitism as anyone who reads it without some insidious bias would have to agree.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, Santiago, you are up first on this one -- should Baraka resign?
NIEVES: Absolutely not. He's been a guest of mine on the morning drive show. He is a gentleman and a scholar and a real poet laureate. And I frankly don't agree with much of what he said. But I respect his right to do that. In fact, some people might feel responsibility as an educator, to probe and stir the waters a little bit. That it's anti-semitic -- absolutely not, pure and simple.
NEVILLE: Deroy, your thoughts.
MURDOCK: Well I thin this is perfect example of the trouble you get into when you get the government getting involved with artistic expression, supporting artists and so on. I don't know why New Jersey needs a poet laureate. They did not have a poet laureate until 1999. That means they went 223 years without a poet laureate.
And if Baraka had just said this as a private citizen people would applaud or boo or hiss. But once he has that imprimatur of the state, then it becomes a huge controversy. The governor gets involved, the legislature gets involved and you have absolute pandemonium. I would get rid of the entire poet laureates office and let it be handled by private citizens and private poets.
NEVILLE: Mark and Farai, hang on for me because I have Sam standing by on the phone in New York. Go ahead, Sam?
CALLER: Yes, I was actually -- in reference to the -- we need to have poets like this speaking out it. It keeps our Democratic society vital. If we don't have First Amendment rights protecting someone saying this, we're no better than Saddam Hussein we're contemplating going in and getting rid of.
Though we may not agree with what he's saying, we still need to be able to support and sponsor the free right of every individual to say what they feel. Especially about something so tremendous and that had such an impact on lives of so many Americans.
MURDOCK: Nobody's saying that he doesn't have the right to say this or write whatever poems he wants. He's perfectly free to do that.
The question is should Baraka be able to say and write things and have the official seal of approval of the state of New Jersey on his words? That's where it's a public matter of controversy rather than just his own private expression.
CHIDEYA: Well this poem -- I received a copy shortly after 9/11, so I know that it has existed for a long time. I'm surprised the controversy is coming up now.
So when the poem was written people were asking who? We didn't know it was Osama bin Laden. I'm certainly convinced -- I think most Americans and people around the world are convinced now that it's Osama bin Laden. But now, we didn't know who it was.
Now we also know that intelligence agencies here in the United States and the Israeli Mossad had reports that something like 9/11 was in the works. So I think that this poem, in certain ways, was prescient that intelligence agencies did know. I think it is controversial, I certainly wouldn't have written it. But I think it's important to have controversial issues aired in America -- otherwise, as the caller said, we are no better than the people we criticize as enemies.
NIEVES: Absolutely, that's why we are supposed to be caring about Iraq.
NEVILLE: Santiago...
NIEVES: ... rights and privileges that we have here. And one is free speech.
NEVILLE: Me and my time constraints. But I want to let Mark get in there because I haven't heard from him. Go ahead, Mark.
SIMONE: The poet laureate of New Jersey? There's a joke in there somewhere. But I've always found a good rule when hiring a poet laureate is don't pick a crazed idiot. First of all, 500 Jews died in the World Trade Center that day. So he's misinformed, he's misrepresenting the facts. And when you accept a job representing New Jersey, there's a certain responsibility which he totally shunned.
NEVILLE: Mark, you are calling Mr. Baraka -- what did you call him?
SIMONE: A crazed idiot which is what he is.
NIEVES: Is that remark is supposed to be mitigated against Amiri Baraka, right? Look, he has the right to write about these things. I don't think it was anti-semitic. You can talk about a poet laureate being relevant in New Jersey or not. But he has the right to do that.
SIMONE: It's so easy to check the facts to find out that 500 Jews died that day. No body was told to stay home. You have the responsibility to be factually accurate to a certain extent.
(CROSSTALK)
NEVILLE: Susan is standing by on the phone in Texas. Go ahead, Susan.
CALLER: Arthel, hi. As a Jewish-American I just want to -- I mean believe in free speech but I think this is atrocious. He says it was aimed at Israel. But any Jewish person in America, Israel is in their heart. And as your person just said -- the spokesman on there. I mean look at Cantor Fitzgerald. Look at all the Jewish people that were killed that day that worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. I just think this is horrible and the way this country is supposed to come together, all race and religions -- I think this man should not be allowed to speak again. NEVILLE: And, Susan, you have the last word. We're going to hear more from New Jersey's poet laureate tonight on "NEWSNIGHT" with Aaron Brown. Make sure you catch that right here on CNN, 10:00 Easter.
And up next, we're going to stay in New Jersey where Democrats finally found a sub for Robert Torricelli. The question is should he get to play? TALKBACK LIVE continues after the break. Don't go anywhere.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
(WEATHER)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.
New Jersey Democrats are going ahead with a plan to run in a sub for scandal-tainted Senate candidate Robert Torricelli. Now the new hope is former Senator Frank Lautenberg. Of course, the Democrats still need to get the court's approval to put Lautenberg's name on the ballot. They missed the legal deadline for replacing candidates.
And, Farai, I will start with you on this one. The Republicans say this will set a horrible precedent to change candidates this close to the election because a nominee tanked in the polls. Are they right?
CHIDEYA: Well, from what I understand -- I mean I think this was a shocker for a lot of people. From what I understand, the case has been made and the decision has not been released. If all else fails, Torricelli could step down and they could then use that as a means to get someone else on the ballot.
I'm not absolutely sure that that is correct. But I think at this point, the Democrats are looking to almost anything in order to save their seat.
NEVILLE: Yes, but the deadline was September 16.
CHIDEYA: But there is still a 30-day window. From what I understand, and I may not be right, 30 days before the end of office someone could step down from the position, and someone else could be put on the ballot.
NIEVES: And the Republicans have already set a precedent. I believe in 1950 there was a member who died or something and they had to replace him. And so that was done in the 50s.
SIMONE: Yes but that was extraordinary circumstances. The guy died.
NIEVE: The Democrats are still shocked, as an example.
(CROSSTALK) MURDOCK: This is not a shocker. I disagree with something that Farai said. We have known for years that Torricelli has had ethical problems. He didn't die, he didn't have a heart attack or get hit by a bus or something.
They've known that he's had ethical problems, and to spite that, they went all the way up until September 15, when they could have said to him, you know, Bob, you have just got too much baggage; we've got to put somebody else in.
They went beyond that. Daschle was campaigning with him just a couple of weeks ago. And if this precedent is allowed to stand, there is no reason why if George Pataki is running for governor of New York, polls 15 points behind in the polls in a couple of weeks, he can't step aside and say, Rudy Giuliani, why don't you step in and run for governor?
This is a terrible, terrible precedent. There are rules to follow. The Democrats have to abide by the law.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Mark.
SIMONE: Well, you're right. It's a terrible precedent to set. The Democrats will probably win this because the democratic machine controls everything in that state. Most of the judges were appointed by the Democrats. Many of them were democratic contributors in the past.
But it's wrong to do this. Torricelli has been running commercials for weeks saying he didn't do anything wrong. In fact, at the end of the commercial it says, "Paid for by Bob Torricelli," which is a first, by the way.
NIEVES: I think, you know, the writing on the wall is when he apologized on television. I thought that was really -- I said that's the first nail in that coffin.
SIMONE: He apologized, but didn't admit to doing anything wrong. He still said he's innocent of the charges.
NIEVES: Right. And then he was forced out.
I tell you, with all of this, I think the people that are hurt the most are those who supported him through thick and thin, who gave him more than $10 million they don't know what to do with now. Now Lautenberg is there. There's truly a mix up. I think that it adds to cynicism of people.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. And on that note, I'm jumping in with Teres (ph) from Illinois.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think this is a clear case of manipulation and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of the system. Mr. Torricelli clearly understands that he's going to lose, so he's stepping down at this point to allow somebody to come in who might have a chance of winning. And it's very clear to me that this should not be allowed. NEVILLE: OK. Listen, I have Mike (ph) standing by on the phone from Illinois. Go ahead, Mike (ph) - your thoughts?
CALLER: I believe the substitution should be allowed. The Supreme Court testimony this morning indicated that one of the issues was the number of absentee ballots that have been printed and sent out. And it's a very minute amount, I believe 1,600 ballots have been sent out at this point.
You know people can withdraw from a race because of health issues, many issues are at stake in this country, and in the senate in particular at this time. I believe Torricelli is a good man, he's been a good senator. I think the substitution should be allowed.
SIMONE: So then why not allow the Republicans to pick another candidate?
CALLER: I think that is ridiculous to allow the Republicans to pick a candidate.
NEVILLE: Then why should the Democrats be allowed, Mike (ph)?
CALLER: Pardon me?
NEVILLE: I said, "Then why should the Democrats be allowed to do that?"
CALLER: Well I think the person that just made that comment was saying that the Republicans should be allowed to pick the democratic candidate, is the way I took that statement..
SIMONE: Yes. If one is allowed to pick another candidate, let the other side do it, that's fair.
CALLER: Sure. That's what I said earlier, that for whatever a person's reasons for withdrawing should be irrelevant. And to speculate that Torricelli may have engaged in improprieties is not really the issue. That would be for a court of law to decide.
NEVILLE: Mike (ph), what does that do to the democratic process, though, if at any point in the game each side can go ahead and choose a better candidate because their man or woman is losing?
CALLER: I don't think that's what the issue is here. You know I may feel differently if there was only five days left to go left before the election, but we're still more than a month away from the election. I don't think it was a matter of, you know, whether they had a losing candidate or a winning candidate.
SIMONE: Yes, but a couple weeks ago when he was ahead in the polls and still had the scandal, he didn't resign. It was only when the polls dropped he resigned.
NEVILLE: That's right. Let me get Andy (ph) in here quickly before a break. Go ahead. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well I don't know how this particular law is written, but laws are written every day and tested in the courts. And I think that it's probably a good chance to, you know, let that go forward and at least try it out in the court.
NEVILLE: But this is one of those laws that is pretty complex, so everybody is looking into it to see if there are any loopholes, et cetera. Thank you for standing up.
And listen, here a question for you. There's a mystery ahead. Who paid whom to keep quiet about what? A new development that could put Martha Stewart into hot water. The talk continues right here on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
How much trouble is Martha Stewart in? An assistant to Stewart's Merrill Lynch stockbroker pleaded guilty today to taking payoffs in order to conceal facts about Stewart's ImClone stock trade. This is reportedly part of a deal in which Douglas (ph) will give incriminating testimony against Stewart and others involved in the scandal.
And so the question is to Santiago, how much trouble is Martha in?
NIEVES: I think that she's not going to be able to cook the upside-down cakes I saw this morning. Actually, I think that she's going to be in trouble, most definitely. But I think that in the end, Martha Stewart will be able to save the day and do -- quite seriously, probably negotiate out of court or something.
I don't think this would end up with a trial. I would think it would not, because I don't think she's in good hands here. But I do believe that this is the beginning of real troubles for Martha Stewart.
MURDOCK: I think the broth thickens. If, in fact, this broker took payoffs to stay quiet, that goes beyond mere insider trading and crosses the line, I think, into obstruction of justice. And if that's the case, that's a very, very serious thing.
The other thing to remember about Martha Stewart is she's not somebody who cooks and does decorations and happened to get wrapped up in her company. She is a former stockbroker and a member of the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange.
She can't say gee, I was just in over my head. I was so confused. I mean she is somebody who really should have known a lot better...
NEVILLE: So Deroy, if she is found guilty of insider trading, then can her business survive? MURDOCK: Well, I think she may have to -- who knows? I mean if she goes to jail, it will be very hard to operate her business from there. And it's a business that's so tied in to her, her personality, her public image, that I think the stock value just goes to nothing. So probably not.
NIEVES: Well I think you would have trouble convincing Martha Stewart she couldn't do it from jail, by the way. But that's my opinion.
CHIDEYA: She would bake a file into her cake. I actually hate to defend Martha Stewart because she actually makes me feel very inadequate because I don't have a house like hers. But why are we so obsessed with Martha Stewart?
It's because she's a celebrity. And I think to a certain extent because she's a woman. And also because, like me, maybe we hate her because she makes us feel inadequate. I look at other scandals like MCI WorldCom, where $9 billion in bad accounting have been recorded on the books. And why are we not following that with the same glee that we're following Martha Stewart?
I think it has a lot to do with personality, politics and, to a certain extent, the fact this is a more understandable scandal but it doesn't have as deep an impact on our economy. And it worries me to a certain extent that we are so obsessed with this.
MURDOCK: I agree with what Farai is saying to a degree. You know I say lock them all up. I mean if Martha Stewart did something illegal, she ought to go to the can. And the same with people at MCI and Enron.
I mean a lot of people have had their money robbed over the last few years. It is very bad for capitalism. It makes things much harder for those of us who believe in the free market to preach what we do. And there ought to be consequences when people engage in this kind of illegality.
SIMONE: Yes. And you can't just say this is something that's not important. It's insider trading. That's what Michael Milken was doing and Ivan Boskey. And a lot of these big financial scandals involve insider trading.
I just feel sorry for whoever is going to be her cellmate. That's not going to be easy. And one thing is people always thought of her that maybe she's a little dishonest, maybe she's a bit of a liar. Obviously not, because the first time she tried lying she turned out to be a total amateur at it. Her explanations were ridiculous.
NIEVES: I remember the day when they were asking her questions and she was cooking something as she was answering these heavy questions.
SIMONE: She was brave to ask it while she was holding that knife in her hand. MURDOCK: Maybe she'll go to jail and improve the prison food.
NEVILLE: What did you say, Deroy?
MURDOCK: Maybe she'll go to jail and improve the prison food.
NEVILLE: All right. California is where we're going to go now, where Ruth (ph) is standing by. Go ahead, Ruth (ph).
CALLER: Hi, Arthel. Thank you. You know I'm no fan of Martha Stewart, but come on, she made off with a penny compared to all the evildoer suits. They've got their pound of female flesh and they're not letting go. This is out and out discrimination.
Where is Ken Lay? Why aren't you talking about him? He was in the White House setting energy policy.
SIMONE: Well, yes. During the Clinton years apparently he was very involved in the White House.
CALLER: Well, you know, don't play partisan politics with me. All you suits are just after her because she's a successful woman and you can't stand it.
SIMONE: Well what's the dollar amount? What dollar amount will you forgive insider trading at? If you're over what dollar amount will you then go after people?
CALLER: I say take the people according to how much money they stole. Where would Martha be? We would be prosecuting her about 30 years from now. We'd go after all the suits that stole billions of dollars, took people's retirement money, took their savings! Come on!
What did Martha do compared -- why aren't you talking about the suits? Why aren't you talking about the men?
SIMONE: One of those suits is Sam Waksal...
(CROSSTALK)
CHIDEYA: I think that the caller - I just want to point out the caller talked about energy policy. And there is actually an ongoing debate surrounding the Vice President Cheney because he's refusing to turn over documents to Congress about who he met with to set energy policy. So this goes very deep and it goes all the way to the White House.
NIEVES: Sticking with Martha Stewart, I'm surprised that this may emerge as a feminist issue.
NEVILLE: DK (ph) from Colorado.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just wanted to say...
NEVILLE: Wait. Hold up. DK (ph) has a wonderful voice, we must stop and listen. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just wanted to say that this whole program today has to do with breaking the law. And the laws are made to be followed. And if there's a law, that you break it, whether it be speeding on the freeway or whatever, you should obey the law.
NEVILLE: Mr. DK (ph), before I got to break, say "Arthel Neville."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Arthel Neville.
NEVILLE: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
We're going to go to break right now and we're going to put our guests to the test. It's time for our lightning quick flash round. You don't want to miss that at all.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. Time for our fast-paced flash round.
First up: Barbra Streisand used what she thought was a Shakespearean quote to bash President Bush at a democratic fundraiser. But it turns out the lines weren't Shakespeare's after all. They were part of a hoax circulated on the Internet.
Streisand says the authorship doesn't detract from the words themselves. Is she right, Farai?
CHIDEYA: No. But it was a good try.
NEVILLE: Mark?
SIMONE: You shouldn't be taking political advice from Barbra Streisand, Dionne Warwick or any singer. It's just ridiculous. And whenever a singer tries to sound serious, it's going to sound stupid.
NEVILLE: Santiago?
NIEVES: Barbra, brush up your Shakespeare. That's all I have to say to Barbra.
NEVILLE: Deroy?
MURDOCK: Streisand should stick to song lyrics.
NEVILLE: OK.
Next up: The publisher of "Rosie" magazine is reportedly suing her for big bucks. We're talking $100 million. "The New York Daily News" reports the suit says Rosie's temper tantrums caused the magazine's down fall. O'Donnell's spokeswoman says she'll counter sue. Who should win this one, Farai?
CHIDEYA: I say make it a draw and walk away.
NEVILLE: Mark?
SIMONE: Rosie has a signed contract, but she also has a good malpractice suit against that hairdresser, whoever he is.
NEVILLE: Santiago?
NIEVES: Nobody knows for sure. Everything is speculation. Nobody knows who the good guy or the bad guy is in this. I like Rosie O'donnell, though, by the way, and she never has changed. She's always been the tough person she is.
NEVILLE: Deroy?
MURDOCK: I'm not a fan of hers, and that's one less thing I have to worry about reading.
NEVILLE: OK.
Next up: "The Real World" goes surreal. The WB is working on a reality show featuring 80's stars like Emanual Lewis, M.C. Hammer, "Facts of Life" star, Mindy Cohen, and others living together. It's titled "The Surreal World." Will you watch, Farai?
CHIDEYA: Heck, no. I ate a bad burrito and I saw it in my dreams.
NEVILLE: Mark?
SIMONE: This is perfect for these old 80's stars, a big brother type show, because all they have been doing for years is sitting around their house.
NEVILLE: Santiago?
NIEVES: I don't even know how to be funny with this. This is absolutely so absurd. No! I wouldn't watch it.
NEVILLE: Deroy?
MURDOCK: Where is Salvador Dali when you need him?
NEVILLE: OK.
Up next: A hospital in Pensacola, Florida says it won't be sending birth announcements to the local newspapers. And we'll ask parents to hold off as well. Sacred Heart Hospital says it's to prevent baby kidnappings, although none has happened at their hospital. Is this necessary, Farai?
CHIDEYA: It sounds like paranoia.
NEVILLE: Mark?
SIMONE: The answer is not having innocent people learn how to hide. It's going after the criminals and prevent this stuff.
NEVILLE: Santiago?
NIEVES: Did somebody say throw out baby with the bath water? Stop already. This is ridiculous. No, I don't think it's necessary. The hospital has never been a victim of it as a matter of fact.
NEVILLE: Deroy?
MURDOCK: Yes, unnecessarily cautious, and lock up the bad guys. I'd agree with that.
NEVILLE: OK.
Last up, a sports reporter at a Minneapolis TV station got suspended after celebrating the Twins' central division victory. Insiders say Ann Hutchinson (ph) was running around the locker room with a cigar in her mouth dousing players. Critics say she crossed the line.
What do you say? Did she deserve suspension, Farai?
CHIDEYA: Depends what kind of champagne she was using.
NEVILLE: OK. Which one would fly, by the way, Farai?
CHIDEYA: No comment.
NEVILLE: All right. Mark?
SIMONE: I don't know, any time cigars and scandals get together I think of Bill Clinton. It's not a good combination.
NEVILLE: Santiago?
NIEVES: Well, Mark took my line, what can I say? It matters of the cigar more to me, I think.
NEVILLE: Deroy?
MURDOCK: Yes, I'd give her a three-day weekend to sit home and think about what she did.
NEVILLE: OK, listen. That's all we have time for our flashes. Don't go anywhere. We're back in a moment. TALKBACK LIVE continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Eileen (ph) from Virginia, final thoughts from you?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't understand why the children in Milwaukee were only talking about their mothers not watching them. The judge spoke only of their mothers. The people in the group today spoke only of their mothers.
All children have two parents and both the parents have the responsibility to get them in off the street and get them ready for school the next day. They should have been home and in bed. (APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Thank you, Eileen (ph). And thank you, Farai Chideya, Mark Simone, Santiago Nieves and Deroy Murdock. Thanks so much for joining us here today.
And we are out of time. Thanks you to you for watching as well. I'm Arthel Neville. I will see you again tomorrow for more TALKBACK LIVE.
Man to Death; Bush Continues Push for War against Iraq>
|
