The Self Righteous Rick Santorum who worked his home state over for some 68,000 dollars to pay for Christian internet services to school his children as the public schools in DC weren't good enough. Talk about Voucher Programs.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
London Bombers, Discovery flight, Romney for President
New Details Emerge About Suspected London Bombers; Discovery Liftoff
Aired July 26, 2005 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again tonight. We know far more about two of the four suspects in last week's bombings in London. Men who are still on the loose, men who may still have access to explosives. British police released their names yesterday. Today details of their lives began to emerge. Both came to Britain as children, their parents asylum seekers from Eastern Africa, meaning that the young men almost certainly picked up their radical beliefs in Britain. The flat in North London where they were known to have stayed is now the focus of an intensive investigation. We begin to night with ITV's Paul Davies.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAUL DAVIES, "ITV" NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A tower block like so many others in North London, but the owner won't be returning to claim the bicycle on this balcony, for this flat was the home of two failed bombers. It's a fact those who lived along side the wanted me are still coming to terms with. Parvish Gukany (ph) used to play football with Yasin Hassan Omar and Muktar Said-Ibrahim and remembers them as two friendly neighbors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's hard to believe that terrorist attacks are coming out of my flat. So, that's really hard to believe. I'm shocked as well. And they were nice people, so I couldn't believe it: Someone like that, doing stuff like that.
DAVIES: Today as children played outside Curtis House, a major police investigation continued with forensic officers searching an underground garage, even the dustbins, taking away various articles for further inspection. It's now believed it was in this one-bedroom counsel flat (ph) on the ninth floor that the failed rucksack bombs were made. Police have been carrying out an extensive search of the inside. Residents recall seeing the wanted men carrying 50 boxes said to contain paint stripper up to the flat, three weeks ago. So far, detectives have removed the ridge for more detailed analysis. There is evidence the men may have returned to the flat after their bomb failed to explode last Thursday. One resident says she saw them on the Friday morning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I come out on the ninth floor and walk down. And as I come out, there was three men standing at now I know to believe 58 acting all suspicious. As soon as they see me, they just slam the front door and jump back in. And now I'm moved to believe one of the men in the terrors.
DAVIES: So what do we now about the two named suspects? Yasin Hassan Omar is 24 years old and from Somalia. He's been a registered counsel tenant since 1999. Muktar Said-Ibrahim or Muktar Mohammed- Said as he's also known, is 27 years old. he's from Eritrea and is known to have shared the flat in Southgate for the past two years. The Home Office says they've been living here legally for 10 years. Today, a man who said he admired their strong religious views refused to condemn their actions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were praying five times a day. They believed in Allah. They believed in the Last Day. They believed in the Day of Judgment. You know, they believed, you know, in the good and the bad comes from Allah.
DAVIES: When this same man said suicide bombings could be condoned in some circumstances, he was escorted away by the police. Officers said he was not under arrest, but they were clearly concerned about the impact of such statements. Paul Davies, ITV News, North London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: All four bombing suspects were caught on surveillance videotapes and police say their investigation focuses on the men. But over the weekend, another bomb was found in the city which raises the question of a possible fifth bomber. Why then are police talking about just four? Here's CNN's Nic Robertson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's the bomb that hasn't been explained. It was found when someone noticed a suspicious backpack in London's Little Wormwood Scrubs park. It was similar to the four bombs, like this one found on a bus in East London, that failed to go off on July 21st. In fact, it used the exact same container as the other four bombs and police were forced to use controlled explosions to disarm it. (on camera): The ground is still damaged where the bomb disposal team dealt with bomb number five, but the question is: Who left it here? (voice-over): Could it have been one of the suspected bombers that police are hunting for or is there a fifth man? Westbourne Park subway station in West London at 12:21 p.m. last Thursday, while three would-be bombers were setting off together on their mission from a South London subway station, the man police call suspect number four is caught, apparently alone on a security camera here. He is just minute away from boarding a train and trying to detonate the explosives in his backpack and is the only one of the four bombers known to go anywhere near Little Wormwood Scrubs park, where the fifth bomb will be discovered two days later. (on camera): The important thing to note here is that he only has one backpack and it's only big enough for one set of explosives. Now remember that as we go along the route. (voice-over): His journey would have been quick, passing through just two stations. (on camera): The police say when he tried to let off his bomb, he then escaped by climbing out the back window of the train. (voice-over): They say he left his backpack on the train and that he ran along the track for about two to three hundred yards. Then climbed down behind these houses. (on camera): He came from the backyard through an open door at the back of this house, out the front door, onto the street and then took off up the street.
RIZGIR NASIR, EYEWITNESS: Yes. Ran down here.
DAVIES: Down the street here?
NASIR: Down the street here. Yes. Down there.
DAVIES (voice-over): Rizgir Nasir was working in a garage at the end of the street. He says the man he saw running down the street, the man police think was the would-be bomber, was alone. (on camera): Was he carrying anything?
NASIR: No. Just -- I think he had spare clothes with him.
DAVIES: Spare clothes. No second backpack?
NASIR: No.
DAVIES: No backpack at all?
NASIR: Definitely not.
DAVIES (voice-over): Suspect number four was last seen about ten minutes later under this bridge, not carrying a pack. He was half-a- mile from Little Wormwood Scrubs park. (on camera): We've heard that suspect number four was alone when he ran off down from the railway tracks. We've also heard that he wasn't carrying anything. So, does that mean therefore, that their must be a bomber number five out there on the loose? And if that's the case, why are the police still saying that they're only looking for four people? So far, they won't say why. Nic Robertson, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: As the police work in London goes on, Londoners are left to get on with their lives in the new normal. The attacks did not succeed in bringing the city to a standstill, not even close. But in ways large and small, as you would imagine, they have made a difference. Here's CNN's Kelly Wallace.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Marina Nones, a secretary at an investment bank, has decided to walk to work 90 minutes each way. She won't get on London's subway, known as the tube.
MARINA NONES, LONDONER: You think about it all the time and every time you go, you know, every time you go anywhere near the tube or get anywhere near a bus you just think: Is it safe, is it not safe? It's all very scary.
WALLACE: It's hard to know exactly how many Londoners feel like Marina, but ridership on the tube following the July 7th bombings and the attempted attacks last week is definitely down for many reasons.
TIM O'TOOLE, LONDON TRANSPORT MANAGING DIRECTOR: Some 15 percent of our network isn't operating. So, you would expect it to be down by at least that much. We've also gone into the vacation period here, which has also taken the ridership down as it does every year. It's a little hard to tell right now.
WALLACE: Many Londoners feeling jittery are finding other ways to get around.: Driving to work. Traffic is up during rush hour. And biking. Bike retailers report a nearly 400-percent increase in sales on July 7th, the day of the first attacks. Since then, an increase of between 40 and 100 percent
DOMINIC THOMAS, EVAN'S CYCLES: People are literally coming in and saying, I've got 200 pounds, I just want to bike to get home with.
WALLACE: Bike shops may be the exception. Many other businesses in central London are experiencing something else. The number of shoppers in the heart of the city, down about 20 percent compared to a year ago, according to a retail tracking firm. Aboard the city's buses, Londoners look around a bit more and some, like Deborah Sewell, keep the little ones close.
DEBORAH SEWELL, LONDONER: The other day, we stopped and I said to him, "You know if anything happens, you get off the bus, you get off just don't worry about mummy. I'll do anything to get you off that bus." WALLACE: But for every anxious mom, there are just as many others who say their daily routines are exactly the same.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone seems to be carrying on as normal that I know.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. London's very stubborn in their lifestyle.
WALLACE (on camera): They don't want to make changes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. They don't make any changes.
WALLACE: That steely resolve, on display throughout this city hit hard by terror, aware of the risks, but giving some sense of moving forward. Kelly Wallace, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Just one postscript to all of this: Since July the 7th, London police have had 250 encounters with people they suspected might be suicide bombers -- 250. On to other matters. There was a time not long ago when the launch of a space shuttle was met with not much more than a collective yawn. The Columbia and Challenger changed that for sure. And when the shuttle Discovery lifted off today, it was virtually impossible, whether you were an engineer at NASA or a tourist on the beach to take anything for granted.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three, two, one, and liftoff of Shuttle Discovery!
BROWN (voice-over): At 10:39, 4.5 million pounds of hope and fear flew again. It was a hugely impressive sight to see, like all shuttle launches are, this one perhaps more so because of where we've been. As with every launch, some debris was seen falling off. Unlike the last time, it appeared to miss Discovery. The last time, two and a half years ago, ended of course in tragedy for the Shuttle Columbia. NASA's mission management team said today, it won't know until Sunday whether Discovery is in good shape for its reentry to Earth. Today, with Columbia on everyone's mind, the reaction was that much more euphoric.
MIKE LEINBACH, SHUTTLE LAUNCH DIRECTOR: The mood was just giddy. People were just slapping each other on the back. And there will only be one thing better than today's launch, and that will be the landing in 12 days.
BROWN: Two weeks ago, a problematic fuel sensor caused another launch to be scrubbed. Mysteriously, the sensor seemed to work just fine today. NASA's chief administrator, Michael Griffin, called it, quote, "an unexplained resolution." On board Discovery, two women and five men headed for their rendezvous with the orbiting space station 250 miles above Earth. Their other mission, to improve safety for future flights. Here on Earth, though, the debate will continue over how useful the shuttle really is. But that's a debate for another day.
WILLIAM READDY, SPACE OPERATIONS: Today, Mother Nature smiled on us. And I also think the Columbia crew smiled on us. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude.
BROWN: In space tonight, Discovery Commander Eileen Collins spoke about why we have a space program in the first place.
EILEEN COLLINS, COMMANDER, SHUTTLE DISCOVERY: We feel the importance, today more than any time, of space exploration, to all those who are living on Earth. Our flight is the next flight of many in the human exploration of the universe.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: The launch today. In a moment, a remarkably cool story with a question or two: The science of transplanting faces. But first, quarter past the hour, time for some of the other news of the day. Erica Hill joins us from Atlanta -- Ms. Hill.
ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Mr. Brown, we begin tonight in Aruba, where investigators say they'll drain a pond near the beach where two brothers say they dropped Natalee Holloway and Joran Van Der Sloot the day the Alabama teen disappeared. Holloway has now been missing for nearly two months. On to a picture that says a lot, unfortunately. The tent pole touching powerlines at the Boy Scout jamboree in Bowling Green, Virginia. Four Scout masters died. The jamboree, however, still ongoing, was closed today for a period of mourning. In Salt Lake City, a judge finds the man accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart mentally unfit to stand trial. He then committed Brian Mitchell to a state hospital until he regains competence. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger taking a few lemons and making a lemon law. The governor signed a bill giving California used car buyers the right to return the car within 48 hours of purchase. But there is a catch here. Because isn't there always a catch? Buyers would actually have to pay for that privilege. It would cost you $75 to $100, plus a restocking fee. So it still pays to read the fine print -- Aaron.
BROWN: Yes, it does. But then you get the lemon off your hands. So it's probably worth $75. HILL: You do. But you don't have to pay for the video at cnn.com.
BROWN: Well, that was very clever, thank you.
HILL: Yeah, you know.
BROWN: Haven't had that for a while.
HILL: In case you forgot.
BROWN: I thought that little program was over when we realized how much dough we were losing. Thank you, Ms. Hill. Much more ahead on the program tonight, starting on the streets.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
"SHEILA," SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM: They locked me in the back of a crackhouse, and they sent men in for days.
BROWN (voice-over): When nighttime falls, a cop has a choice.
"SHEILA": Sent men and rocks of cocaine into me.
BROWN: See nothing but darkness...
MARY, "SHEILA'S" MOM" And I do believe Jerry Vick saved her life.
BROWN: ... or search for the light. Later, a medical breakthrough.
DR. JOHN BARKER, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: What these people really wish for is to walk into a room and not be noticed.
BROWN: Transplanting a human face. (on camera): Today, could you make this work?
BARKER: Absolutely.
BROWN (voice-over): And from John Kennedy...
JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
BROWN: To John Roberts.
JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court.
BROWN: What role should God play in public life? Religion and politics, good heavens. This must be NEWSNIGHT
.(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: I like this story. This is a story about two kinds of people, the ones you sometimes take for granted and the kind you cross the street to avoid: Undercover cops and hookers. A better way of putting it might be this -- here's the story of a man and the woman he died -- who died, rather, trying to save. From St. Paul, Minnesota tonight, CNN's Deborah Feyerick.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's a rare cop that understands a prostitute's life isn't always what it seems. Sergeant Jerry Vick was one of those cops. Sheila was one of those prostitutes. (on camera): He kind of understood where you had come from, what you'd been through?
"SHEILA", SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM: Yeah. It's pretty much one girl's story is any girl's story out there. Yeah, it's pretty universal. FEYERICK (voice-over): Sheila started turning tricks four years ago when she was 16. She asked us to change her name and shield her face, afraid in part of an ex-pimp.
"SHEILA": He wrote his name on our bodies all over and said, you are mine. And I didn't see a dime of the money. And they locked me in the back of a crackhouse, and they sent men in for days. Sent men and rocks of cocaine into me.
FEYERICK: Jacinta Garrett didn't have a pimp, but like "Sheila," she did have a drug problem, one she says that cost her about $400 a night. She was turning tricks the night she met Jerry Vick.
JACINTA GARRETT, SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM: We started talking about, you know, me performing sexual acts on him or whatever. And then I told -- he asked me, did I know a place to come to? And I said, well, I don't have a house, but I know where a little park is at.
FEYERICK: Sergeant Jerry Vick, or Vick, as he's called, worked undercover vice on the streets of St. Paul, Minnesota. Deanna Fink was his partner. (on camera): How many times was he up and down this street in the course of his career, working vice?
DEANNA FINK, ST. PAUL POLICE: Thousands. Thousands.
FEYERICK: And somehow, they never recognized him? They never spotted him as being the same cop?
FINK: No. And not until after they were arrested again, and then they'd go, oh, Jerry, I should have known it was you!
FEYERICK (voice-over): He won two medals of valor, one of them for saving a child from a burning building. But working vice was his passion.
CHIEF JOHN HARRINGTON, ST. PAUL POLICE: Jerry Vick I think probably was the most effective vice cop I've ever seen. He was able to make inroads into the juvenile prostitution scene that we have never been able to get into before.
FEYERICK: When Sergeant Vick arrested "Sheila" last year, she was making $2,000 a night. She was tired and scared and couldn't break free from her pimp.
"SHEILA": He wouldn't let me sleep if there was work to be done. It's unbelievable mental abuse. It's like being in a trance.
FEYERICK: "Sheila's" mom, Mary, had given up, refusing to bail her daughter out of jail again. (on camera): Tell me about the first call you ever got from Officer Jerry Vick.
MARY, "SHEILA'S" MOM: He called that night, along with the other officer that arrested her, and told me what he believed she really needed was to be home with her mom.
FEYERICK: This house in St. Paul helps women out of prostitution. It's called Breaking Free. And it's where Sergeant Vick brought many of the girls he'd arrested.
JOY FRIEDMAN, BREAKING FREE: He fought for them even when they didn't fight for themselves. And that was cool. He fought in front of the judges. He fought with probation officers.
FEYERICK: He also fought to make prostitutes see there was another way, a life outside of sex and drugs.
GARRETT: He was like, you're better than that, you need to be at home being a mom to your kids instead of out here prostituting. And I told him the reason why I was out there prostituting was to get something to eat. But he just said that I was lying, and he was like, no, I don't believe you.
FEYERICK (on camera): You came to this parking lot expecting to turn a trick.
GARRETT: Yeah.
FEYERICK: When something else happened.
GARRETT: Yeah. I got busted for prostitution.
FEYERICK: But more than that.
GARRETT: It changed my life around.
"SHEILA": He believed I was a victim and believes all the other women are victims.
FEYERICK (voice-over): It's also something he taught officers like Paul Schnell to believe.
OFFICER PAUL SCHNELL, ST. PAUL POLICE: Jerry recognized his own weaknesses and weaknesses in others, but I think focused more on people's strengths.
FEYERICK: On May 6th, it ended. (on camera): It was 2:00 in the morning when Sergeant Vick and his partner left this bar on St. Paul's East Side. They'd been working overtime on a prostitution investigation. They met two men outside. Words were exchanged. Within minutes, Sergeant Vick was dead. (voice-over): He was given a hero's funeral. Crowds lining the streets of St. Paul.
FINK: He wore his flannel shirt all the time. I teased him that superheroes don't wear flannel. And -- but he was -- to me, that's what he was. He was very much a superhero.
FEYERICK (on camera): How did he make you a better person?
FINK: He did for me what he did for, you know, the girls on the street. He believed in me.
FEYERICK (voice-over): Now drug-free, "Sheila" is studying criminal justice at a community college.
"SHEILA": I think Jerry was brought into my life for a specific reason. And I hope I was brought into his for a reason. I hope I gave him hope that he was doing something out there on the street.
FEYERICK: Mary has her daughter back. MARY: And I do believe Jerry Vick saved her life.
FEYERICK: And Jacinta Garrett never went back to that park. (on camera): What has the world lost now that he's gone?
GARRETT: Oh, wow. They lost a true friend.
FEYERICK (voice-over): Sergeant Vick's family is in shock. They hope his dream of a safe house to help women find a better life will one day be built to carry on the work Sergeant Vick was unable to finish. Deborah Feyerick, CNN, St. Paul, Minnesota.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Coming up on the program tonight, the judge and the higher authority. Did John Roberts say he would avoid cases that conflict with his religion? Later, India and the turmoil there. Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with headlines around the world. Because around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: And now on 8th Avenue, on a hot night, could get to 100 in the city, at least today. A bit now on judges, papers, politics and God. There was a document dump today, papers that Judge John Roberts prepared while working for the Reagan administration. There was that, and there was this -- an op-ed piece in "The Los Angeles Time." In it, law professor Jonathan Turley saying that during a meeting with Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois on Friday, Senator Durbin asked Judge Roberts about their shared faith -- the two are Roman Catholics. Senator Durbin reportedly wanted to know what would happen should the law require a ruling that church, the church considers immoral? Judge Roberts reportedly saying he would recuse himself, he wouldn't participate. The discussion was confidential. A spokesman for the senator called Professor Turley's account inaccurate. Professor Turley saying, the account came from the senator himself. Hmm. Whatever the case, a larger question touches a nerve and has for a very long time in American life. Here's CNN's Jeff Greenfield.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace, or the public acts of its officials.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): It was a significant issue back in 1960. Some prominent Protestants, ranging from Norman Vincent Peale to Martin Luther King Sr. had questions about the loyalty of a Catholic president. But in the years since, the religious issue has faded. Democrats chose a Jewish nominee for vice president in 2000. And last year, a born-again Protestant actually won the Catholic vote against the Catholic nominee of the Democratic Party. And religion doesn't often tell us much about a public figure's views. Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a Catholic, is an ardent foe of abortion. Ted Kennedy, a Catholic, is an ardent supporter of abortion rights. On the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia and Thomas, both Catholics, would overturn Roe versus Wade; Justice Anthony Kennedy, also a Catholic, would not. (on camera): But does this mean that we should never raise questions with public officials about their religious beliefs? Well, consider.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another dark horse candidate...
GREENFIELD (voice-over): Michigan Governor George Romney was a presidential prospect in the 1960s, at a time when his Mormon Church barred blacks from the priesthood, out of a belief that their skin color was the mark of Kane. Romney was a supporter of civil rights laws back then, but would a question about his church's position have been out of bounds?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Romney, Mr. Romney...
GREENFIELD: His son, Mitt, now the governor of Massachusetts, appears to be flirting with the presidency, but he will face no such question, because the Mormon Church ended its ban back in 1978. In that same era, Illinois Senator Chuck Percy was touted as a potential president. He was a Christian Scientist, a religion that in general shuns doctors and conventional medicine. Would it have been out of bounds to ask him about, say, Medicare and Medicaid funding?
When it comes to prospective Supreme Court justices, there may well be some positions that senators would very much want to know, whether they followed from religious beliefs or not. For instance, back in 1994, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun announced he would no longer tinker with the machinery of death, that for him capital punishment was inherently unconstitutional.
It is highly likely that conservative senators, most of whom now oppose probing a nominee's views, would be very troubled by that view. Whether it came from a religious or secular conviction.
Or what about a prospective justice who thought all abortions violated the constitutional protection against taking life without due process, and were thus always invalid, no matter what a state legislature said? Whether that relief derived from a religious teaching or not, wouldn't senators want to know about that?
(on camera): So maybe the whole question about a judge's religious views is the wrong question. Maybe the right way to approach this is to ask not where do your beliefs come from, but do you hold any beliefs, no matter where you got them, that might be in conflict with your job as a judge?
Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Whether it's a right question or a wrong question, the fact is that the cocktail of religion and politics has become a huge part of the public debate these days. Where the lines are and should be, whether you're a governor or a president, a legislator or a judge. John Danforth, it seems, has been most of those things and an Episcopal minister to boot. We talked with the former Republican senator from Missouri earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Is there inherently a conflict between one's strongly held religious views and one's ability to execute fairly and responsibly public policy that may go against that?
JOHN DANFORTH (R), FMR. U.S. SENATOR: I would not call that an inherent conflict. I think it's important in our country for people who are in public life, obviously they bring to public life their entire being, all that they are, including their religious beliefs and their tradition. But it's very important for our country to hold the whole country together. And that means that public policy can't be something that is people attempting to push one particular religious perspective on the country. You really have to honor the diversity of the country and you have to make an effort to do that.
BROWN: We have politicians who are Catholic who say, well, I personally, my person belief is abortion is wrong. But that's not what I think public policy should be. Is that a problem?
DANFORTH: You know, I think right now a lot of people are talking about Judge Roberts and the Supreme Court. And I think that, first of all, I mean, you really have to talk about the role of the judiciary and think about the role of the judiciary, which is different from the role of the legislature. If you had a judge, particularly a Supreme Court Justice, who had strongly held religious views and viewed his role as a judge as using that forum to try to perpetuate his religious views or try to push them on the country, we would have a real problem. But that is not what Judge Roberts is.
BROWN: What I think is happening, and I think to some extent you agree with this, what's happening in a broader public policy arena in the country, political arena in the country, is a kind of odd marrying of theological view and public policy view. And I'm not sure it's -- I guess, personally, I'm not always sure it's healthy.
DANFORTH: It can be. It can be very unhealthy. Because let's face it, nothing is more divisive than religion. I mean, people are always saying, you know, what you don't discuss is religion and politics. Why? Because they're divisive. And the mixture of the two is particularly divisive. And if people think that the role of government is to adopt one particular religious concept, one particular religious idea, and put that in the law, I mean, Constitutionally it's a violation of church and state, but beyond that, it's just not good. Some people are winners, religiously. Some people are losers. And I don't think we want to have that.
BROWN: I just think this is a great and important area to continue for the program, number one, but for the country to talk about and to work through. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, if it becomes a factor, I have no idea, with Judge Roberts and beyond. It's always a privilege to talk to you. We appreciate your time.
DANFORTH: Thank you.
BROWN: Thank you, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Still to come tonight, medical science that takes your breath away. The possibility of transplanting human face, and everything it means. And later, the scars that surgery can't heal. Coming home from the war in Iraq. A break first. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT
.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Someone once said that the face of Garbo is an idea and that Hepburn an event. It's not just the famous who are known for their faces. Our faces are a large part of who we are, how we see ourselves, how we're seen, and how we're judged. We trust an honest face, a kind expression can win us over. Which brings us to some complicated questions. A doctor profiled today in "The New York Times" is leading an effort to perform the world's first face transplant. The Cleveland Clinic, where she works now is looking for a patient, someone who would help make medical history. But at what cost? The Cleveland Clinic declined to talk to us today, but we spoke earlier in the day with another expert in the field. Dr. John Barker, the director of plastic surgery research at the University of Louisville.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: When you talk about a face transplant, what is it that you are transplanting?
DR. JOHN BARKER, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: Well, that is completely dependent on what the defect is. In other words, if a person, for example, a burn victim who's, you know, half of their face is burned, the procedure consists of removing what is burned and replacing it with transplanted tissue. So it's totally dictated by what the defect is.
BROWN: It's not taking Tom Cruise's face and putting it on someone else?
BARKER: No, no.
BROWN: OK. It's taking facial skin off a cadaver and putting it on someone who, let's say, is a burn victim? Basically is that right?
BARKER: That is right. But the way that it really is planned is that you look at the amount of tissue that's burned on your recipient, on the person that's going to receive the transplant. You remove that scarred tissue. And based on what is removed, that is what you take from the cadaver and place it to replace, you know, the tissue that is damaged.
BROWN: Let's talk about the ethical issues for a second. First among them is what, in your mind?
BARKER: We ask them, how much risk would they accept to get different types of procedures? One is a face, another one is a hand transplant, other one is the kidney transplant. And across the board, regardless of who you ask, regardless of whether they're a transplant patient or a facially disfigured patient, everybody would risk the most to get a face transplant.
BROWN: If you were to be able to do this and to do it successfully in the way that you define success, would the severely burned patient, for example, or the severely disfigured patient, come through the procedure looking like we look?
BARKER: For the most part, yes. Immediately after surgery, of course, there will be swelling and all of that. But eventually, when the actual surgery heals, the person will look like a human being, as opposed to the severe disfigurement that they have in their current state.
BROWN: Are you making them look like they used to look?
BARKER: No, not at all. BROWN: So they'll look different than they used to look.
BARKER: They will look different. And that -- of course, that's very important, to set their expectations. They will look like a mixture of themselves, because the bony structure underneath, and the cadaver from which you took the tissue. Because of course, the outside surface is of that person. So we've done cadaver studies and actually shown that they look like a mixture of the two. What these people -- what facially disfigured people really wish for is to walk into a room and not be noticed.
BROWN: Yeah.
BARKER: And this is exactly what we believe would happen, is they could literally walk into a room and people wouldn't even turn and look at them, which is very different from their current situation.
BROWN: Then, you know, good luck. It's for people in that horribly disfigured state, this is -- would be a remarkable breakthrough, all of the ethical issues notwithstanding that we all need to think about. So best of luck to you. Good luck.
BARKER: Thank you very much.
BROWN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: John Barker down in Louisville, Kentucky, tonight.Ahead on the program, is the government about to put Pullman cars to sleep? Think about that. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: In a moment, they've left Iraq, but will Iraq ever leave them? When the war comes home. First, at about a quarter to the hour, time once again for the headlines of the day, which means time once again for Erica Hill, who's once again in Atlanta -- Ms. Hill.
HILL: Funny how that works, isn't it?
BROWN: Yeah.
HILL: We actually start off on a rather somber note. A second day of violence near New Delhi, India. Outside a hospital there, protesters threw rocks at police who responded with tear gas. The protesters were mostly angry co-workers and family members of those injured in this clash on Monday, when police beat hundreds of Honda workers with bamboo sticks. The workers had staged a protest demanding some dismissed workers get their jobs back. Well, back stateside, the Transportation Department's inspector general has some advice for Amtrak -- leave the sleepers in the yard. Getting rid of sleeper service on long haul trains would save up to $158 million, according to his report. Congress is considering $1.4 billion in aid to Amtrak for next year, but the White House wants to spend nothing and leave rail travel to the states. And we'd like to introduce you to Ralph and Norton. They are the only two
(INAUDIBLE)
whale sharks in captivity in the Western Hemisphere. They're swimming in a 5 million gallon tank the size of a football field. And they just happen to be some of my newest neighbors here in Atlanta. They're the biggest attraction at the new Atlanta Aquarium. This is just an old preview, though, of Ralph and Norton and their friends there. The aquarium will actually open Thanksgiving week.
BROWN: That's pretty cool.
HILL: It is pretty neat.
BROWN: Yeah. Thank you for that.
HILL: Yeah.
BROWN: It can't all be bad news, got to throw a whale in every now and then. Thank you.
HILL: Or two.
BROWN: Yeah, as it turns out, thank you.U.S. military said today -- back to reality, I guess -- that four American troops were killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq over the weekend. The latest deaths bring the total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to 1,779. Thousands more, of course, have been injured. For those lucky enough to return home with their bodies intact, there are often other scars. This week in Washington, lawmakers are taking up the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder. We take it up here tonight
.(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): Lance Sustaida has left Iraq. He's not sure Iraq has ever, or will ever, leave him.
LANCE SUSTAIDA, HOSPITAL CORPSMEN: You can't forget these experiences and the things that you saw. The images still haunt you, every day. BROWN: His humvee mangled by a roadside bomb. The seat where he would have been sitting if he hadn't been given a last-minute order.
L. SUSTAIDA: What if I did go on that mission? I started thinking about my family, my wife. And I knew that this isn't playing. This isn't training. I'm at war, and people do die.
BROWN: Violence is the very nature of war. The inability to deal with the violence, to deal with the memories, is something far more complicated.
L. SUSTAIDA: I had nightmares about voices. Smells would trigger these things. I had a small flashback.
JESSICA SUSTAIDA, WIFE OF LANCE SUSTAIDA: He was not the same person. He was checking the doors all the time, looking out the windows. And I kept telling him, you know, there's something wrong, you need to go to a doctor.
BROWN: Sustaida finally agreed, and began therapy at Camp Lejeune.
L. SUSTAIDA: Starting to get better, you know.
BROWN: The doctor said he had PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, a textbook case.
ROBERT J. LANGENFELD, OPERATIONAL PSYCHIATRIST: It is basically experiencing real or imagined threat to your life or personal integrity. There's a number of things that can manifest that way, such as nightmares, flashbacks. People can be hypervigilant, easily startled, more irritable and angry, not sleeping as well. Some of the things they're experiencing were protective to them when they were in a combat theater. But when you get back here in a safe environment in the United States, your body isn't quite ready to let go of that yet.
BROWN: A study commissioned by "The New England Journal of Medicine" found that one in six Iraq and Afghanistan vets will suffer from PTSD. One in six will look just fine on the outside, while suffering, often in silence, on the inside.
COL. THOMAS BURKE, DIRECTOR, DOD MENTAL HEALTH POLICY: The efforts that the military is making to treat PTSD now is unprecedented. Our acceptance and understanding of mental illness, while not perfect, is much better than it was 30 years ago. Our treatments are much better, much more effective.
BROWN: Generally, the treatment is a combination of psychotherapy and medication. To get soldiers into treatment, the military has ruled out an array of programs. There are written pre and post-deployment screenings. Combat stress teams in the field. A 24 hour hotline. Programs to educate families.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're here to help any way we can.
BROWN: Even a warrior transition program designed to help returning sailors and marines adjust to civilian life. It's a start but the "New England Journal of Medicine" found that less than 40 percent of the vets from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD actually sought help.
BURKE: Getting the soldiers to overcome the fear that somehow they will be labeled as weak or that they will be unreliable, that they won't get promoted, that their buddies won't accept them anymore, and getting them to understand that life is better after you get help for mental health issues. That's the biggest challenge.
BROWN: SUSTAIDA seems to understand it all. He understands that treatment can help, and he understands why so many do not seek it.
SUSTAIDA: The military, there's always a tough guy image, as far as getting counseling and talking to your peers. There are more people out there that don't get the help that they really need. I've talked to some friends that I work with. They too had these symptoms.
BROWN: The symptoms can be treated. Even if the memories will only fade, never to disappear.(END VIDEOTAPE)BROWN: Congress looking at the issue this week in Washington. When we come back, the youngest robbers. Our "Morning Papers." Break first.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Okey doke. Time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world. About a minute and a half, tonight, so we're going to move quickly.
"Cincinnati Inquirer." Just about everybody puts the shuttle on the front page. "Pride and worry in return to space." More on that in a minute. But over here, man oh man "Robbery arrests include 8-year-olds. Their guns were cigarette lighters. A robbery ring, some 18-year-olds," so you can feel better about that, "an 11-year-old and two 8-year-olds."
"The Des Moines Register." "Shuttle heads back into space" is the lead. Down here, I like this story, "Signs of the old times. City officials say they have higher priorities than updating sidewalk signs." So you're walking down the street in Des Moines, and you're heading for Babe's Brewery, right there it says just go straight ahead to Babe's, except Babe's went out of business ten years ago.
"Christian Science Monitor." "Shuttle launches into its final era." But "cost of electricity rising like summer heat," and they show it's gone up twice, almost three times as much, the electricity has. So turn your air conditioner off. Turn it down, don't turn it off. How we doing on time. Thank you.
"Boston Herald." "Toss the drunks in jail. Two hundred Bay State drivers have eight or more operating under the influences." Yes. I would think after the eighth time you'd get thrown in jail. If we had to pick one, and we don't, but if we had to pick one shuttle headline, we'd pick this one from down in Florida,
"The Orlando Sentinel." "Discovery roars back into space." It's a terrific picture. The weather tomorrow in Chicago, all of you have been waiting for a break in the weather. Sweet -- thank you. Sweet relief. The picture of the day as we wrap it up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Here's your next astronaut on a day when Discovery flew. We'll see you tomorrow. Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired July 26, 2005 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again tonight. We know far more about two of the four suspects in last week's bombings in London. Men who are still on the loose, men who may still have access to explosives. British police released their names yesterday. Today details of their lives began to emerge. Both came to Britain as children, their parents asylum seekers from Eastern Africa, meaning that the young men almost certainly picked up their radical beliefs in Britain. The flat in North London where they were known to have stayed is now the focus of an intensive investigation. We begin to night with ITV's Paul Davies.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAUL DAVIES, "ITV" NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A tower block like so many others in North London, but the owner won't be returning to claim the bicycle on this balcony, for this flat was the home of two failed bombers. It's a fact those who lived along side the wanted me are still coming to terms with. Parvish Gukany (ph) used to play football with Yasin Hassan Omar and Muktar Said-Ibrahim and remembers them as two friendly neighbors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's hard to believe that terrorist attacks are coming out of my flat. So, that's really hard to believe. I'm shocked as well. And they were nice people, so I couldn't believe it: Someone like that, doing stuff like that.
DAVIES: Today as children played outside Curtis House, a major police investigation continued with forensic officers searching an underground garage, even the dustbins, taking away various articles for further inspection. It's now believed it was in this one-bedroom counsel flat (ph) on the ninth floor that the failed rucksack bombs were made. Police have been carrying out an extensive search of the inside. Residents recall seeing the wanted men carrying 50 boxes said to contain paint stripper up to the flat, three weeks ago. So far, detectives have removed the ridge for more detailed analysis. There is evidence the men may have returned to the flat after their bomb failed to explode last Thursday. One resident says she saw them on the Friday morning.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I come out on the ninth floor and walk down. And as I come out, there was three men standing at now I know to believe 58 acting all suspicious. As soon as they see me, they just slam the front door and jump back in. And now I'm moved to believe one of the men in the terrors.
DAVIES: So what do we now about the two named suspects? Yasin Hassan Omar is 24 years old and from Somalia. He's been a registered counsel tenant since 1999. Muktar Said-Ibrahim or Muktar Mohammed- Said as he's also known, is 27 years old. he's from Eritrea and is known to have shared the flat in Southgate for the past two years. The Home Office says they've been living here legally for 10 years. Today, a man who said he admired their strong religious views refused to condemn their actions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were praying five times a day. They believed in Allah. They believed in the Last Day. They believed in the Day of Judgment. You know, they believed, you know, in the good and the bad comes from Allah.
DAVIES: When this same man said suicide bombings could be condoned in some circumstances, he was escorted away by the police. Officers said he was not under arrest, but they were clearly concerned about the impact of such statements. Paul Davies, ITV News, North London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: All four bombing suspects were caught on surveillance videotapes and police say their investigation focuses on the men. But over the weekend, another bomb was found in the city which raises the question of a possible fifth bomber. Why then are police talking about just four? Here's CNN's Nic Robertson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's the bomb that hasn't been explained. It was found when someone noticed a suspicious backpack in London's Little Wormwood Scrubs park. It was similar to the four bombs, like this one found on a bus in East London, that failed to go off on July 21st. In fact, it used the exact same container as the other four bombs and police were forced to use controlled explosions to disarm it. (on camera): The ground is still damaged where the bomb disposal team dealt with bomb number five, but the question is: Who left it here? (voice-over): Could it have been one of the suspected bombers that police are hunting for or is there a fifth man? Westbourne Park subway station in West London at 12:21 p.m. last Thursday, while three would-be bombers were setting off together on their mission from a South London subway station, the man police call suspect number four is caught, apparently alone on a security camera here. He is just minute away from boarding a train and trying to detonate the explosives in his backpack and is the only one of the four bombers known to go anywhere near Little Wormwood Scrubs park, where the fifth bomb will be discovered two days later. (on camera): The important thing to note here is that he only has one backpack and it's only big enough for one set of explosives. Now remember that as we go along the route. (voice-over): His journey would have been quick, passing through just two stations. (on camera): The police say when he tried to let off his bomb, he then escaped by climbing out the back window of the train. (voice-over): They say he left his backpack on the train and that he ran along the track for about two to three hundred yards. Then climbed down behind these houses. (on camera): He came from the backyard through an open door at the back of this house, out the front door, onto the street and then took off up the street.
RIZGIR NASIR, EYEWITNESS: Yes. Ran down here.
DAVIES: Down the street here?
NASIR: Down the street here. Yes. Down there.
DAVIES (voice-over): Rizgir Nasir was working in a garage at the end of the street. He says the man he saw running down the street, the man police think was the would-be bomber, was alone. (on camera): Was he carrying anything?
NASIR: No. Just -- I think he had spare clothes with him.
DAVIES: Spare clothes. No second backpack?
NASIR: No.
DAVIES: No backpack at all?
NASIR: Definitely not.
DAVIES (voice-over): Suspect number four was last seen about ten minutes later under this bridge, not carrying a pack. He was half-a- mile from Little Wormwood Scrubs park. (on camera): We've heard that suspect number four was alone when he ran off down from the railway tracks. We've also heard that he wasn't carrying anything. So, does that mean therefore, that their must be a bomber number five out there on the loose? And if that's the case, why are the police still saying that they're only looking for four people? So far, they won't say why. Nic Robertson, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: As the police work in London goes on, Londoners are left to get on with their lives in the new normal. The attacks did not succeed in bringing the city to a standstill, not even close. But in ways large and small, as you would imagine, they have made a difference. Here's CNN's Kelly Wallace.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Marina Nones, a secretary at an investment bank, has decided to walk to work 90 minutes each way. She won't get on London's subway, known as the tube.
MARINA NONES, LONDONER: You think about it all the time and every time you go, you know, every time you go anywhere near the tube or get anywhere near a bus you just think: Is it safe, is it not safe? It's all very scary.
WALLACE: It's hard to know exactly how many Londoners feel like Marina, but ridership on the tube following the July 7th bombings and the attempted attacks last week is definitely down for many reasons.
TIM O'TOOLE, LONDON TRANSPORT MANAGING DIRECTOR: Some 15 percent of our network isn't operating. So, you would expect it to be down by at least that much. We've also gone into the vacation period here, which has also taken the ridership down as it does every year. It's a little hard to tell right now.
WALLACE: Many Londoners feeling jittery are finding other ways to get around.: Driving to work. Traffic is up during rush hour. And biking. Bike retailers report a nearly 400-percent increase in sales on July 7th, the day of the first attacks. Since then, an increase of between 40 and 100 percent
DOMINIC THOMAS, EVAN'S CYCLES: People are literally coming in and saying, I've got 200 pounds, I just want to bike to get home with.
WALLACE: Bike shops may be the exception. Many other businesses in central London are experiencing something else. The number of shoppers in the heart of the city, down about 20 percent compared to a year ago, according to a retail tracking firm. Aboard the city's buses, Londoners look around a bit more and some, like Deborah Sewell, keep the little ones close.
DEBORAH SEWELL, LONDONER: The other day, we stopped and I said to him, "You know if anything happens, you get off the bus, you get off just don't worry about mummy. I'll do anything to get you off that bus." WALLACE: But for every anxious mom, there are just as many others who say their daily routines are exactly the same.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone seems to be carrying on as normal that I know.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. London's very stubborn in their lifestyle.
WALLACE (on camera): They don't want to make changes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. They don't make any changes.
WALLACE: That steely resolve, on display throughout this city hit hard by terror, aware of the risks, but giving some sense of moving forward. Kelly Wallace, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Just one postscript to all of this: Since July the 7th, London police have had 250 encounters with people they suspected might be suicide bombers -- 250. On to other matters. There was a time not long ago when the launch of a space shuttle was met with not much more than a collective yawn. The Columbia and Challenger changed that for sure. And when the shuttle Discovery lifted off today, it was virtually impossible, whether you were an engineer at NASA or a tourist on the beach to take anything for granted.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Three, two, one, and liftoff of Shuttle Discovery!
BROWN (voice-over): At 10:39, 4.5 million pounds of hope and fear flew again. It was a hugely impressive sight to see, like all shuttle launches are, this one perhaps more so because of where we've been. As with every launch, some debris was seen falling off. Unlike the last time, it appeared to miss Discovery. The last time, two and a half years ago, ended of course in tragedy for the Shuttle Columbia. NASA's mission management team said today, it won't know until Sunday whether Discovery is in good shape for its reentry to Earth. Today, with Columbia on everyone's mind, the reaction was that much more euphoric.
MIKE LEINBACH, SHUTTLE LAUNCH DIRECTOR: The mood was just giddy. People were just slapping each other on the back. And there will only be one thing better than today's launch, and that will be the landing in 12 days.
BROWN: Two weeks ago, a problematic fuel sensor caused another launch to be scrubbed. Mysteriously, the sensor seemed to work just fine today. NASA's chief administrator, Michael Griffin, called it, quote, "an unexplained resolution." On board Discovery, two women and five men headed for their rendezvous with the orbiting space station 250 miles above Earth. Their other mission, to improve safety for future flights. Here on Earth, though, the debate will continue over how useful the shuttle really is. But that's a debate for another day.
WILLIAM READDY, SPACE OPERATIONS: Today, Mother Nature smiled on us. And I also think the Columbia crew smiled on us. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude.
BROWN: In space tonight, Discovery Commander Eileen Collins spoke about why we have a space program in the first place.
EILEEN COLLINS, COMMANDER, SHUTTLE DISCOVERY: We feel the importance, today more than any time, of space exploration, to all those who are living on Earth. Our flight is the next flight of many in the human exploration of the universe.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: The launch today. In a moment, a remarkably cool story with a question or two: The science of transplanting faces. But first, quarter past the hour, time for some of the other news of the day. Erica Hill joins us from Atlanta -- Ms. Hill.
ERICA HILL, CNN HEADLINE NEWS ANCHOR: Mr. Brown, we begin tonight in Aruba, where investigators say they'll drain a pond near the beach where two brothers say they dropped Natalee Holloway and Joran Van Der Sloot the day the Alabama teen disappeared. Holloway has now been missing for nearly two months. On to a picture that says a lot, unfortunately. The tent pole touching powerlines at the Boy Scout jamboree in Bowling Green, Virginia. Four Scout masters died. The jamboree, however, still ongoing, was closed today for a period of mourning. In Salt Lake City, a judge finds the man accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart mentally unfit to stand trial. He then committed Brian Mitchell to a state hospital until he regains competence. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger taking a few lemons and making a lemon law. The governor signed a bill giving California used car buyers the right to return the car within 48 hours of purchase. But there is a catch here. Because isn't there always a catch? Buyers would actually have to pay for that privilege. It would cost you $75 to $100, plus a restocking fee. So it still pays to read the fine print -- Aaron.
BROWN: Yes, it does. But then you get the lemon off your hands. So it's probably worth $75. HILL: You do. But you don't have to pay for the video at cnn.com.
BROWN: Well, that was very clever, thank you.
HILL: Yeah, you know.
BROWN: Haven't had that for a while.
HILL: In case you forgot.
BROWN: I thought that little program was over when we realized how much dough we were losing. Thank you, Ms. Hill. Much more ahead on the program tonight, starting on the streets.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
"SHEILA," SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM: They locked me in the back of a crackhouse, and they sent men in for days.
BROWN (voice-over): When nighttime falls, a cop has a choice.
"SHEILA": Sent men and rocks of cocaine into me.
BROWN: See nothing but darkness...
MARY, "SHEILA'S" MOM" And I do believe Jerry Vick saved her life.
BROWN: ... or search for the light. Later, a medical breakthrough.
DR. JOHN BARKER, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: What these people really wish for is to walk into a room and not be noticed.
BROWN: Transplanting a human face. (on camera): Today, could you make this work?
BARKER: Absolutely.
BROWN (voice-over): And from John Kennedy...
JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
BROWN: To John Roberts.
JOHN ROBERTS, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps to argue a case before the court.
BROWN: What role should God play in public life? Religion and politics, good heavens. This must be NEWSNIGHT
.(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: I like this story. This is a story about two kinds of people, the ones you sometimes take for granted and the kind you cross the street to avoid: Undercover cops and hookers. A better way of putting it might be this -- here's the story of a man and the woman he died -- who died, rather, trying to save. From St. Paul, Minnesota tonight, CNN's Deborah Feyerick.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's a rare cop that understands a prostitute's life isn't always what it seems. Sergeant Jerry Vick was one of those cops. Sheila was one of those prostitutes. (on camera): He kind of understood where you had come from, what you'd been through?
"SHEILA", SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM: Yeah. It's pretty much one girl's story is any girl's story out there. Yeah, it's pretty universal. FEYERICK (voice-over): Sheila started turning tricks four years ago when she was 16. She asked us to change her name and shield her face, afraid in part of an ex-pimp.
"SHEILA": He wrote his name on our bodies all over and said, you are mine. And I didn't see a dime of the money. And they locked me in the back of a crackhouse, and they sent men in for days. Sent men and rocks of cocaine into me.
FEYERICK: Jacinta Garrett didn't have a pimp, but like "Sheila," she did have a drug problem, one she says that cost her about $400 a night. She was turning tricks the night she met Jerry Vick.
JACINTA GARRETT, SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM: We started talking about, you know, me performing sexual acts on him or whatever. And then I told -- he asked me, did I know a place to come to? And I said, well, I don't have a house, but I know where a little park is at.
FEYERICK: Sergeant Jerry Vick, or Vick, as he's called, worked undercover vice on the streets of St. Paul, Minnesota. Deanna Fink was his partner. (on camera): How many times was he up and down this street in the course of his career, working vice?
DEANNA FINK, ST. PAUL POLICE: Thousands. Thousands.
FEYERICK: And somehow, they never recognized him? They never spotted him as being the same cop?
FINK: No. And not until after they were arrested again, and then they'd go, oh, Jerry, I should have known it was you!
FEYERICK (voice-over): He won two medals of valor, one of them for saving a child from a burning building. But working vice was his passion.
CHIEF JOHN HARRINGTON, ST. PAUL POLICE: Jerry Vick I think probably was the most effective vice cop I've ever seen. He was able to make inroads into the juvenile prostitution scene that we have never been able to get into before.
FEYERICK: When Sergeant Vick arrested "Sheila" last year, she was making $2,000 a night. She was tired and scared and couldn't break free from her pimp.
"SHEILA": He wouldn't let me sleep if there was work to be done. It's unbelievable mental abuse. It's like being in a trance.
FEYERICK: "Sheila's" mom, Mary, had given up, refusing to bail her daughter out of jail again. (on camera): Tell me about the first call you ever got from Officer Jerry Vick.
MARY, "SHEILA'S" MOM: He called that night, along with the other officer that arrested her, and told me what he believed she really needed was to be home with her mom.
FEYERICK: This house in St. Paul helps women out of prostitution. It's called Breaking Free. And it's where Sergeant Vick brought many of the girls he'd arrested.
JOY FRIEDMAN, BREAKING FREE: He fought for them even when they didn't fight for themselves. And that was cool. He fought in front of the judges. He fought with probation officers.
FEYERICK: He also fought to make prostitutes see there was another way, a life outside of sex and drugs.
GARRETT: He was like, you're better than that, you need to be at home being a mom to your kids instead of out here prostituting. And I told him the reason why I was out there prostituting was to get something to eat. But he just said that I was lying, and he was like, no, I don't believe you.
FEYERICK (on camera): You came to this parking lot expecting to turn a trick.
GARRETT: Yeah.
FEYERICK: When something else happened.
GARRETT: Yeah. I got busted for prostitution.
FEYERICK: But more than that.
GARRETT: It changed my life around.
"SHEILA": He believed I was a victim and believes all the other women are victims.
FEYERICK (voice-over): It's also something he taught officers like Paul Schnell to believe.
OFFICER PAUL SCHNELL, ST. PAUL POLICE: Jerry recognized his own weaknesses and weaknesses in others, but I think focused more on people's strengths.
FEYERICK: On May 6th, it ended. (on camera): It was 2:00 in the morning when Sergeant Vick and his partner left this bar on St. Paul's East Side. They'd been working overtime on a prostitution investigation. They met two men outside. Words were exchanged. Within minutes, Sergeant Vick was dead. (voice-over): He was given a hero's funeral. Crowds lining the streets of St. Paul.
FINK: He wore his flannel shirt all the time. I teased him that superheroes don't wear flannel. And -- but he was -- to me, that's what he was. He was very much a superhero.
FEYERICK (on camera): How did he make you a better person?
FINK: He did for me what he did for, you know, the girls on the street. He believed in me.
FEYERICK (voice-over): Now drug-free, "Sheila" is studying criminal justice at a community college.
"SHEILA": I think Jerry was brought into my life for a specific reason. And I hope I was brought into his for a reason. I hope I gave him hope that he was doing something out there on the street.
FEYERICK: Mary has her daughter back. MARY: And I do believe Jerry Vick saved her life.
FEYERICK: And Jacinta Garrett never went back to that park. (on camera): What has the world lost now that he's gone?
GARRETT: Oh, wow. They lost a true friend.
FEYERICK (voice-over): Sergeant Vick's family is in shock. They hope his dream of a safe house to help women find a better life will one day be built to carry on the work Sergeant Vick was unable to finish. Deborah Feyerick, CNN, St. Paul, Minnesota.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Coming up on the program tonight, the judge and the higher authority. Did John Roberts say he would avoid cases that conflict with his religion? Later, India and the turmoil there. Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with headlines around the world. Because around the world, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: And now on 8th Avenue, on a hot night, could get to 100 in the city, at least today. A bit now on judges, papers, politics and God. There was a document dump today, papers that Judge John Roberts prepared while working for the Reagan administration. There was that, and there was this -- an op-ed piece in "The Los Angeles Time." In it, law professor Jonathan Turley saying that during a meeting with Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois on Friday, Senator Durbin asked Judge Roberts about their shared faith -- the two are Roman Catholics. Senator Durbin reportedly wanted to know what would happen should the law require a ruling that church, the church considers immoral? Judge Roberts reportedly saying he would recuse himself, he wouldn't participate. The discussion was confidential. A spokesman for the senator called Professor Turley's account inaccurate. Professor Turley saying, the account came from the senator himself. Hmm. Whatever the case, a larger question touches a nerve and has for a very long time in American life. Here's CNN's Jeff Greenfield.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KENNEDY: I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace, or the public acts of its officials.
JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SR. ANALYST (voice-over): It was a significant issue back in 1960. Some prominent Protestants, ranging from Norman Vincent Peale to Martin Luther King Sr. had questions about the loyalty of a Catholic president. But in the years since, the religious issue has faded. Democrats chose a Jewish nominee for vice president in 2000. And last year, a born-again Protestant actually won the Catholic vote against the Catholic nominee of the Democratic Party. And religion doesn't often tell us much about a public figure's views. Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, a Catholic, is an ardent foe of abortion. Ted Kennedy, a Catholic, is an ardent supporter of abortion rights. On the Supreme Court, Justices Scalia and Thomas, both Catholics, would overturn Roe versus Wade; Justice Anthony Kennedy, also a Catholic, would not. (on camera): But does this mean that we should never raise questions with public officials about their religious beliefs? Well, consider.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Another dark horse candidate...
GREENFIELD (voice-over): Michigan Governor George Romney was a presidential prospect in the 1960s, at a time when his Mormon Church barred blacks from the priesthood, out of a belief that their skin color was the mark of Kane. Romney was a supporter of civil rights laws back then, but would a question about his church's position have been out of bounds?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Romney, Mr. Romney...
GREENFIELD: His son, Mitt, now the governor of Massachusetts, appears to be flirting with the presidency, but he will face no such question, because the Mormon Church ended its ban back in 1978. In that same era, Illinois Senator Chuck Percy was touted as a potential president. He was a Christian Scientist, a religion that in general shuns doctors and conventional medicine. Would it have been out of bounds to ask him about, say, Medicare and Medicaid funding?
When it comes to prospective Supreme Court justices, there may well be some positions that senators would very much want to know, whether they followed from religious beliefs or not. For instance, back in 1994, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun announced he would no longer tinker with the machinery of death, that for him capital punishment was inherently unconstitutional.
It is highly likely that conservative senators, most of whom now oppose probing a nominee's views, would be very troubled by that view. Whether it came from a religious or secular conviction.
Or what about a prospective justice who thought all abortions violated the constitutional protection against taking life without due process, and were thus always invalid, no matter what a state legislature said? Whether that relief derived from a religious teaching or not, wouldn't senators want to know about that?
(on camera): So maybe the whole question about a judge's religious views is the wrong question. Maybe the right way to approach this is to ask not where do your beliefs come from, but do you hold any beliefs, no matter where you got them, that might be in conflict with your job as a judge?
Jeff Greenfield, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Whether it's a right question or a wrong question, the fact is that the cocktail of religion and politics has become a huge part of the public debate these days. Where the lines are and should be, whether you're a governor or a president, a legislator or a judge. John Danforth, it seems, has been most of those things and an Episcopal minister to boot. We talked with the former Republican senator from Missouri earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Is there inherently a conflict between one's strongly held religious views and one's ability to execute fairly and responsibly public policy that may go against that?
JOHN DANFORTH (R), FMR. U.S. SENATOR: I would not call that an inherent conflict. I think it's important in our country for people who are in public life, obviously they bring to public life their entire being, all that they are, including their religious beliefs and their tradition. But it's very important for our country to hold the whole country together. And that means that public policy can't be something that is people attempting to push one particular religious perspective on the country. You really have to honor the diversity of the country and you have to make an effort to do that.
BROWN: We have politicians who are Catholic who say, well, I personally, my person belief is abortion is wrong. But that's not what I think public policy should be. Is that a problem?
DANFORTH: You know, I think right now a lot of people are talking about Judge Roberts and the Supreme Court. And I think that, first of all, I mean, you really have to talk about the role of the judiciary and think about the role of the judiciary, which is different from the role of the legislature. If you had a judge, particularly a Supreme Court Justice, who had strongly held religious views and viewed his role as a judge as using that forum to try to perpetuate his religious views or try to push them on the country, we would have a real problem. But that is not what Judge Roberts is.
BROWN: What I think is happening, and I think to some extent you agree with this, what's happening in a broader public policy arena in the country, political arena in the country, is a kind of odd marrying of theological view and public policy view. And I'm not sure it's -- I guess, personally, I'm not always sure it's healthy.
DANFORTH: It can be. It can be very unhealthy. Because let's face it, nothing is more divisive than religion. I mean, people are always saying, you know, what you don't discuss is religion and politics. Why? Because they're divisive. And the mixture of the two is particularly divisive. And if people think that the role of government is to adopt one particular religious concept, one particular religious idea, and put that in the law, I mean, Constitutionally it's a violation of church and state, but beyond that, it's just not good. Some people are winners, religiously. Some people are losers. And I don't think we want to have that.
BROWN: I just think this is a great and important area to continue for the program, number one, but for the country to talk about and to work through. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, if it becomes a factor, I have no idea, with Judge Roberts and beyond. It's always a privilege to talk to you. We appreciate your time.
DANFORTH: Thank you.
BROWN: Thank you, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Still to come tonight, medical science that takes your breath away. The possibility of transplanting human face, and everything it means. And later, the scars that surgery can't heal. Coming home from the war in Iraq. A break first. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT
.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Someone once said that the face of Garbo is an idea and that Hepburn an event. It's not just the famous who are known for their faces. Our faces are a large part of who we are, how we see ourselves, how we're seen, and how we're judged. We trust an honest face, a kind expression can win us over. Which brings us to some complicated questions. A doctor profiled today in "The New York Times" is leading an effort to perform the world's first face transplant. The Cleveland Clinic, where she works now is looking for a patient, someone who would help make medical history. But at what cost? The Cleveland Clinic declined to talk to us today, but we spoke earlier in the day with another expert in the field. Dr. John Barker, the director of plastic surgery research at the University of Louisville.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: When you talk about a face transplant, what is it that you are transplanting?
DR. JOHN BARKER, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: Well, that is completely dependent on what the defect is. In other words, if a person, for example, a burn victim who's, you know, half of their face is burned, the procedure consists of removing what is burned and replacing it with transplanted tissue. So it's totally dictated by what the defect is.
BROWN: It's not taking Tom Cruise's face and putting it on someone else?
BARKER: No, no.
BROWN: OK. It's taking facial skin off a cadaver and putting it on someone who, let's say, is a burn victim? Basically is that right?
BARKER: That is right. But the way that it really is planned is that you look at the amount of tissue that's burned on your recipient, on the person that's going to receive the transplant. You remove that scarred tissue. And based on what is removed, that is what you take from the cadaver and place it to replace, you know, the tissue that is damaged.
BROWN: Let's talk about the ethical issues for a second. First among them is what, in your mind?
BARKER: We ask them, how much risk would they accept to get different types of procedures? One is a face, another one is a hand transplant, other one is the kidney transplant. And across the board, regardless of who you ask, regardless of whether they're a transplant patient or a facially disfigured patient, everybody would risk the most to get a face transplant.
BROWN: If you were to be able to do this and to do it successfully in the way that you define success, would the severely burned patient, for example, or the severely disfigured patient, come through the procedure looking like we look?
BARKER: For the most part, yes. Immediately after surgery, of course, there will be swelling and all of that. But eventually, when the actual surgery heals, the person will look like a human being, as opposed to the severe disfigurement that they have in their current state.
BROWN: Are you making them look like they used to look?
BARKER: No, not at all. BROWN: So they'll look different than they used to look.
BARKER: They will look different. And that -- of course, that's very important, to set their expectations. They will look like a mixture of themselves, because the bony structure underneath, and the cadaver from which you took the tissue. Because of course, the outside surface is of that person. So we've done cadaver studies and actually shown that they look like a mixture of the two. What these people -- what facially disfigured people really wish for is to walk into a room and not be noticed.
BROWN: Yeah.
BARKER: And this is exactly what we believe would happen, is they could literally walk into a room and people wouldn't even turn and look at them, which is very different from their current situation.
BROWN: Then, you know, good luck. It's for people in that horribly disfigured state, this is -- would be a remarkable breakthrough, all of the ethical issues notwithstanding that we all need to think about. So best of luck to you. Good luck.
BARKER: Thank you very much.
BROWN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: John Barker down in Louisville, Kentucky, tonight.Ahead on the program, is the government about to put Pullman cars to sleep? Think about that. From New York, this is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: In a moment, they've left Iraq, but will Iraq ever leave them? When the war comes home. First, at about a quarter to the hour, time once again for the headlines of the day, which means time once again for Erica Hill, who's once again in Atlanta -- Ms. Hill.
HILL: Funny how that works, isn't it?
BROWN: Yeah.
HILL: We actually start off on a rather somber note. A second day of violence near New Delhi, India. Outside a hospital there, protesters threw rocks at police who responded with tear gas. The protesters were mostly angry co-workers and family members of those injured in this clash on Monday, when police beat hundreds of Honda workers with bamboo sticks. The workers had staged a protest demanding some dismissed workers get their jobs back. Well, back stateside, the Transportation Department's inspector general has some advice for Amtrak -- leave the sleepers in the yard. Getting rid of sleeper service on long haul trains would save up to $158 million, according to his report. Congress is considering $1.4 billion in aid to Amtrak for next year, but the White House wants to spend nothing and leave rail travel to the states. And we'd like to introduce you to Ralph and Norton. They are the only two
(INAUDIBLE)
whale sharks in captivity in the Western Hemisphere. They're swimming in a 5 million gallon tank the size of a football field. And they just happen to be some of my newest neighbors here in Atlanta. They're the biggest attraction at the new Atlanta Aquarium. This is just an old preview, though, of Ralph and Norton and their friends there. The aquarium will actually open Thanksgiving week.
BROWN: That's pretty cool.
HILL: It is pretty neat.
BROWN: Yeah. Thank you for that.
HILL: Yeah.
BROWN: It can't all be bad news, got to throw a whale in every now and then. Thank you.
HILL: Or two.
BROWN: Yeah, as it turns out, thank you.U.S. military said today -- back to reality, I guess -- that four American troops were killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq over the weekend. The latest deaths bring the total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq to 1,779. Thousands more, of course, have been injured. For those lucky enough to return home with their bodies intact, there are often other scars. This week in Washington, lawmakers are taking up the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder. We take it up here tonight
.(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN (voice-over): Lance Sustaida has left Iraq. He's not sure Iraq has ever, or will ever, leave him.
LANCE SUSTAIDA, HOSPITAL CORPSMEN: You can't forget these experiences and the things that you saw. The images still haunt you, every day. BROWN: His humvee mangled by a roadside bomb. The seat where he would have been sitting if he hadn't been given a last-minute order.
L. SUSTAIDA: What if I did go on that mission? I started thinking about my family, my wife. And I knew that this isn't playing. This isn't training. I'm at war, and people do die.
BROWN: Violence is the very nature of war. The inability to deal with the violence, to deal with the memories, is something far more complicated.
L. SUSTAIDA: I had nightmares about voices. Smells would trigger these things. I had a small flashback.
JESSICA SUSTAIDA, WIFE OF LANCE SUSTAIDA: He was not the same person. He was checking the doors all the time, looking out the windows. And I kept telling him, you know, there's something wrong, you need to go to a doctor.
BROWN: Sustaida finally agreed, and began therapy at Camp Lejeune.
L. SUSTAIDA: Starting to get better, you know.
BROWN: The doctor said he had PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, a textbook case.
ROBERT J. LANGENFELD, OPERATIONAL PSYCHIATRIST: It is basically experiencing real or imagined threat to your life or personal integrity. There's a number of things that can manifest that way, such as nightmares, flashbacks. People can be hypervigilant, easily startled, more irritable and angry, not sleeping as well. Some of the things they're experiencing were protective to them when they were in a combat theater. But when you get back here in a safe environment in the United States, your body isn't quite ready to let go of that yet.
BROWN: A study commissioned by "The New England Journal of Medicine" found that one in six Iraq and Afghanistan vets will suffer from PTSD. One in six will look just fine on the outside, while suffering, often in silence, on the inside.
COL. THOMAS BURKE, DIRECTOR, DOD MENTAL HEALTH POLICY: The efforts that the military is making to treat PTSD now is unprecedented. Our acceptance and understanding of mental illness, while not perfect, is much better than it was 30 years ago. Our treatments are much better, much more effective.
BROWN: Generally, the treatment is a combination of psychotherapy and medication. To get soldiers into treatment, the military has ruled out an array of programs. There are written pre and post-deployment screenings. Combat stress teams in the field. A 24 hour hotline. Programs to educate families.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're here to help any way we can.
BROWN: Even a warrior transition program designed to help returning sailors and marines adjust to civilian life. It's a start but the "New England Journal of Medicine" found that less than 40 percent of the vets from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD actually sought help.
BURKE: Getting the soldiers to overcome the fear that somehow they will be labeled as weak or that they will be unreliable, that they won't get promoted, that their buddies won't accept them anymore, and getting them to understand that life is better after you get help for mental health issues. That's the biggest challenge.
BROWN: SUSTAIDA seems to understand it all. He understands that treatment can help, and he understands why so many do not seek it.
SUSTAIDA: The military, there's always a tough guy image, as far as getting counseling and talking to your peers. There are more people out there that don't get the help that they really need. I've talked to some friends that I work with. They too had these symptoms.
BROWN: The symptoms can be treated. Even if the memories will only fade, never to disappear.(END VIDEOTAPE)BROWN: Congress looking at the issue this week in Washington. When we come back, the youngest robbers. Our "Morning Papers." Break first.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Okey doke. Time to check morning papers from around the country and around the world. About a minute and a half, tonight, so we're going to move quickly.
"Cincinnati Inquirer." Just about everybody puts the shuttle on the front page. "Pride and worry in return to space." More on that in a minute. But over here, man oh man "Robbery arrests include 8-year-olds. Their guns were cigarette lighters. A robbery ring, some 18-year-olds," so you can feel better about that, "an 11-year-old and two 8-year-olds."
"The Des Moines Register." "Shuttle heads back into space" is the lead. Down here, I like this story, "Signs of the old times. City officials say they have higher priorities than updating sidewalk signs." So you're walking down the street in Des Moines, and you're heading for Babe's Brewery, right there it says just go straight ahead to Babe's, except Babe's went out of business ten years ago.
"Christian Science Monitor." "Shuttle launches into its final era." But "cost of electricity rising like summer heat," and they show it's gone up twice, almost three times as much, the electricity has. So turn your air conditioner off. Turn it down, don't turn it off. How we doing on time. Thank you.
"Boston Herald." "Toss the drunks in jail. Two hundred Bay State drivers have eight or more operating under the influences." Yes. I would think after the eighth time you'd get thrown in jail. If we had to pick one, and we don't, but if we had to pick one shuttle headline, we'd pick this one from down in Florida,
"The Orlando Sentinel." "Discovery roars back into space." It's a terrific picture. The weather tomorrow in Chicago, all of you have been waiting for a break in the weather. Sweet -- thank you. Sweet relief. The picture of the day as we wrap it up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Here's your next astronaut on a day when Discovery flew. We'll see you tomorrow. Good night.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
The Republican Character is not Condusive to Democracy and it shows up in the extremes vividly.
They are the worst bigots. They justify their hatred under the cloak of religion and god. They know not god. They know emotional control of others by blugeoning their morality as if correct when all they seek is political ridicule of their opposition. They are facsits who would see someone like me as fearing a 'ghost' and needing pity. Pity until they are somehow allowed to end their irritation.
A Nation cannot have a democracy with racism and bigotry.
It's impossible.
An interview with, Rick Santorum, the third ranking Repuglican in the Right Wing.
A Vile Extremist.
What Aaron Brown never asks is where are the limits of intolerance of others? There are none.
BROWN: Sam Rayburn, the legendary speaker of the house of representatives was legendary for many things, but is remembered for saying this if you want to get along, go along. Safe to say our guest tonight rarely gets called the get along/go along type. Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania is fiercely partisan, openly devout, frequently outspoken. He's also the third ranking Republican in the United States Senate, and now the author of "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." We're pleased to see him always, and pleased that he's with us in New York tonight. Nice to see you.…
BROWN: You can't know. I'll talk a little about the book, a little about other things. I saw a poll the other day that said 60 percent of the country wanted to know how Judge Roberts felt about Roe v Wade. It's a settled case. Do you think the country's entitled to know whether he believes that that case was decided correctly?
SANTORUM: You know my feeling is, you have to look at the standard of what's been applied in the past. And what judges in the past have been forced to answer is, you know, how they felt about, you know, sort of the black letter law, if you will. Not really looking at, how would you rule in cases.
BROWN: I'm not asking how you'd rule. This is a settled case. Roe v Wade is a settled case, it is settled. Is this a fair question, do you agree that that case was settled correctly? Is that a fair question to ask him?
SANTORUM: Well, let me put it this way. That question was asked of Judge Ginsberg, it was asked of Judge Breyer and neither of them answered the question.
BROWN: So the answer is no you don't think the country is entitled…
SANTORUM: Well I think, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, it's remarkable that we have an ACLU lawyer, not just someone who -- I mean, an ACLU lawyer who gets a pass on their ideology for the United States Senate and we have a lawyer who is really a lawyer's lawyer, he's been all over the place, is clearly not someone with an agenda and all of a sudden they have to answer litmus test kinds of questions. Is that fair? I would say it's not fair.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS RANTINGS ARE ABOUT.
There is an ACLU lawyer in the Senate.
I would like to know who that is.
I don't mind.
I find it highly objectionable to think John What's his name, Oh, yeah, Roberts. John Robert's is a LAWYER'S LAWYER. I guess that is like being a MAN'S MAN, huh? So a Lawyer's Lawyer is someone who is all over the place in deciding cases. Is that right? Well, I guess you might want to say that to a-kin him to Sandra Day O'Connor, but, there are some of us who weren't born yesterday Ricky.
BROWN: All I want to know is if -- it's really a simple question.
SANTORUM: I'm giving you the answer. The answer is no. If it wasn't answered in the past, it shouldn't be answered in the future.
BROWN: OK. So we're not entitled to know whether he thinks that was settled correctly, no. Why? Isn't that a good thing to know? Because people vote for and against that.
SANTORUM: I think you should know about how a judge makes a decision and what he takes into consideration in making that decision. But as far as applying it to a specific case...
BROWN: Even if that case has been decided?
SANTORUM: Right, you know, I think even if that case has been decided, yeah. I think you want -- you want to look at -- this is not a test of how judges feel about certain issues. You get to elect members of the Congress. We have to answer those questions.
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: No -- well, not the right to privacy as created under Roe v. Wade and all...
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: I think there's a right to unreasonable -- to unreasonable search and seizure...
THIS IS WHERE people like Santorum lose their arguments as they want to see the USA Constitution as a RULE BOOK.
It's not.
It has guidelines to apply to the life we live but it isn't a dictatorial tool.
The Fourth Amendment if you will:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
There is nothing complicated here and where the Religious Right Republican Party wants to 'getcha' is on the definition of 'Probable Cause.'
That is why Texas had a sodomy law. As long as it was illegal for men to make love together by the act in which they chose to express it, they could prove Probable Cause, make homosexuality illegal and jail people. Other than that being a human rights violation raises the issue what happens to repeat offenders.
The Religious Right is trying to 'capture' old 'colonial themes' and apply it to the USA Constitution as if this was a precept to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They do that chronically. It's hideous and poor Justice Souter even felt he needed to defend against it in his argument regarding separating 'church and state.'
The past is not the direction the present takes. It is all too easy to find religious references. PRIMARILY Christian references in Colonial America.
The Jews didn't arrive until the beginning of the 1900s with the immigration movement and the domination of the Nazis in Europe. One of the largest and earliest Jewish congregations to come to this country was Rabbi Max Heller's congregation in New Orleans. Until that point Jews lived among Christians and were primarily poor and rejected by society but as with anything else there was safety and prosperity in numbers. As an asset to the culture and determined need to survive the earliest forms of medicine, law and media (newsprint) was mastered by the Jews.
Those three professions were least advantageous in an agrarian society that met at Church once a week for the news. Colonial America doctored with common sense and horse liniment. All those professions were on the margins and the reason newsprint was important is because it grew out of a community need to share letters from distant relatives. Rabbi Heller developed a huge community that lived very near their synagogue. The professions flourished with shared concerns and ideas. It was out of the Jewish communities these 'wonders' of medicine and communication grew.
And law.
Colonial America didn't concentrate on law the way society does today. The towns were small, the population less, they were gunslingers who ''smoked people out" into the open and then hung them after ganging up on them in a court of law. To practice law opposing judges was a social sin. Jews represented criminals because it was a living no one else wanted to perform. After the Jews arrived in American, the landscape changed dramatically.
No one ever says thank you.
I am not sure when the Muslim faith or Hindu or Buddist showed up in this country but they also lived in sequestered areas where they could worship as they wanted without causing too much oddity as Christians would see them. So, to even TRY to apply Old Colonial Realities to modern day is an outrageous and bigoted thought. The men who wrote the US Consitution were all Caucasian property owners and there were absolutely no women in the process. So, to see the US Constitution as a 'Rule Book' is to be bigoted and why this Evangelical Right Wing Movement does exactly that.
BROWN: For example, if you'd been a Supreme Court judge in Griswold versus Connecticut, the famous birth control case came up, which centered around whether there was a right to privacy. Do you believe that was correctly decided?
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Docket Number: 496Abstract
Argued:March 29, 1965
Decided:June 7, 1965
Subjects:
Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Personal Injury
Facts of the CaseGriswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
THERE IS NOTHING COMPLICATED HERE EITHER.
Unless.
You oppose birth control and family planning. Then there is a lot wrong here but that is individual choice and PRIVACY. Get over it.
SANTORUM: No, I don't. I write about it in the book. I don't.
BROWN: The state of Connecticut had the right to ban birth control for a married couple.
SANTORUM: I think they were wrong. It was a bad law.
BROWN: But they had the right.
SANTORUM: They had the right. They had the right…
BROWN: Why would a conservative argue that government should interfere with that most personal decision?S
ANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And...
IT IS BAD LAW according to the Junior Senator because it doesn't match Rich Santorum's belief system.
His ego is so huge here that it fills up every available breathing space in the room.
Mr. and Mrs. Santorum doesn't have to do anything they don't want to and they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. Like I said, ' ... the Republican character is not condusive to democracy.' Bush/Cheney talk about spreading democracy but the way they practice it never brings with it peace.
BROWN: But they had the right to make.
SANTORUM: They had the right to make it. Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...
BROWN: OK.
SANTORUM: ... but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that. Courts don't do that. They only get cases that come before them and they have to make broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road.So, much self righteousness.
These people don't have modesty.
THAT LAST PARAGRAPH HE SPOKE IS 'JUSTIFICATION' TO REPEATEDLY PRESENT CASE AFTER CASE to the Supreme Court 'thinking' the entire time all the court needs is more exposure to change these decisions. That is how these morons continue to solicit their constituencies by PROMSING this is just the way of reversing 'bad law' and every time we approach the court it changes incrementally better.
"W"rong.
It is high time these legislators set their constituencies straight and tell them the law is set and it's time we live with everyone else and not just our standards.
That's what happened in Griswold. It was a bad law. The court felt, we can't let this bad law stand in place. It's wrong. It was. But they made a -- they created out of whole cloth a right that now has gone far, far from Griswold versus Connecticut.
THIS IS NOT BAD LAW.
However, he is right in stating there are stupid legislators. He provides a magnificent example of one.
BROWN: I'm going to do something I almost never do. The control room just -- we're going to go -- we're going to run long here. This is fun and interesting.
SANTORUM: OK.
BROWN: I want to talk about the thing you said about Boston for a second.
SANTORUM: OK.
BROWN: OK. I don't know if we have this. We can put it on the screen, but you said "when the culture is sick, every element becomes infected. While it is no excuse, the scandal" -- referring to the priest abuse scandal -- "it is no secret that Boston, the seat of academic, political, cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."First of all, wasn't that a little over the top?
SANTORUM: Well, what's over the top is taking a three-year-old article...
BROWN: What's the context?
SANTORUM: And the context was, I was writing about the priest scandal and condemning the priest scandal, condemning the church...
BROWN: Well, of course you were condemning it. No one supports it.
SANTORUM: ... and talking about concrete things we need to do to fix it. I was out there. No other United States senator...
BROWN: Why so -- why Boston?
SANTORUM: Because, again, context. What was going on in 2002 -- not 2005, but in 2002 -- that's where the scandal was. It wasn't anywhere else. We weren't talking about it. In 2002, it was the epicenter. We didn't have the report by the bishops conference. We didn't have…
BROWN: So now you wouldn't say that?
SANTORUM: I wouldn't -- well, no, there's a lot of other cities that were involved. But the point is that cultural liberalism and what I talked about is a contributing factor to how people view sexual activity. And I am not the one that says that. Robert Bennett, in the report that he issued on behalf of the bishops conference, called the Bennett report, said exactly my words, except the word Boston wasn't in it.
BROWN: OK. But you wouldn't say that about Boston now. Is that right? Based on what we know about the scandal.
SANTORUM: I said it then, it was the...
BROWN: Not then, now?
SANTORUM: ... yeah, it was the epicenter, and there are many other cities that that would apply
.… and there are many other cities that that would apply
.… and there are many other cities that that would apply
.… and there are many other cities that that would apply.
THE Rebuglican Right Wing wants to make example of "Blue State Strongholds" like New York City.
Like Boston.
Like San Francisco.
Like Los Angeles.
Like Chicago as 'epicenters' of SIN.
"Sin City" if you will. Bruce Willis made a movie not long ago entitled exactly that. Odd how this party thinks if they introduce a movie to the public it will all be over. The 'idea' behind defaming large cities as areas of sinfulness is to COST them their 'tourist' trade by a large aspect of the population, SUPPOSEDLY, who will boycott these cities until the morality changes. I find it very odd this is a topic of conversation beyond the allotted time considering there was an entire segment on "Paula Zahn NOW" regarding escorts in New York City and one in particular that was featured in "The New Yorker" that billed out at $2000 per hour.
Very odd indeed.
THE bad boys of Aaron and Rick decided on break they could 'get away' with clout enough to stretch the interview.
BROWN: What we were talking about in the break was that -- my belief that actually in many respects, the left and the right talk (INAUDIBLE), but they agree on a lot of things. It takes a child -- it takes a family and it takes a village, in fact, are both true. And I think you'd agree with that.
SANTORUM: And I say that, yeah.
BROWN: Right. And that the left doesn't believe it only takes a village any more than the right believes it only takes a family.
SANTORUM: It's where you start from. I think the left -- the left starts from the top down. Believes in the experts, believes in...
BROWN: What is the basis of that? Why do you believe that?
SANTORUM: Well, I mean, look at institutions dominated by the left. I mean, education.
IF THAT isn't the truth.
The Red States have the highest literacy rates, the highest divorce rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates. I mean no wonder these people are so religious. Nothing else is working for them.
I talk about this very much in the book. I mean, it was created very much as a way of having, you know, social control from the top, and modernizing it to -- into our culture, progressive children, and having state control of education. It's been a battle ever since for local control of schools, versus the experts on top trying to decide for us how to handle...
BROWN: Republican administration -- this -- your administration has exerted more federal control over schools than any in history.
SANTORUM: Yeah. I have serious -- serious problems and have had serious problems with federal legislation. And had very serious concerns about No Child Left Behind…
BROWN: Did you vote for it?
SANTORUM: I voted for it, because what it basically required was accountability. It didn't dictate how we get there. It dictated that you had the measure how you get there. And to me, that is basically holding folks accountable for what they do, as opposed to dictating what they do.
ACCOUNTABILITY.
Not important how you get there, just that you get there, including 'Teaching to the Test,' depriving schools ranked as unattainable from funding and causing greater hardship of those children while the Religious Right takes their chilfren to the 'Charter School' system and 'Voucher Programs.'
Men like Rick Santorum don't care about other children so much as his own and what he has to keep them free of secularism. You know it sort of reminds me of the way Rick Santorum runs his career as a legislator and the way Repuglicans run their agendas.
"It doesn't matter how you get there so long as you do."
BROWN: Do you really think that left and right have a dramatically different view of how a good child is formed?
A GOOD CHILD.
A GOOD CHILD.
Well, where there is a good child I suppose there is a bad child as well.
SANTORUM: I would say yes. The highest virtue of the left in the world today is tolerance, and that is -- that's acceptance of anything, and anything for any reason. Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
WE WENT FROM 'RIGHT' to Most Americans. Well, if it's most Americans the only ones left need to change including 'the left' especially considering we all have to have THE SAME VIEW of a Good Child.
They are self righteous at the cost of others freedoms. There way is the only way to them. I've heard it all before.
I think most Americans want people to have certain virtues, honesty, integrity and all those other things.
There may be agreement, and certainly obviously the left wants honesty and integrity, but there is a lot of things they don't accept.Just ahead ,,,, other things to take care of. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Control room's recovering from its heart attack.
A Nation cannot have a democracy with racism and bigotry.
It's impossible.
An interview with, Rick Santorum, the third ranking Repuglican in the Right Wing.
A Vile Extremist.
What Aaron Brown never asks is where are the limits of intolerance of others? There are none.
BROWN: Sam Rayburn, the legendary speaker of the house of representatives was legendary for many things, but is remembered for saying this if you want to get along, go along. Safe to say our guest tonight rarely gets called the get along/go along type. Rick Santorum, the junior senator from Pennsylvania is fiercely partisan, openly devout, frequently outspoken. He's also the third ranking Republican in the United States Senate, and now the author of "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." We're pleased to see him always, and pleased that he's with us in New York tonight. Nice to see you.…
BROWN: You can't know. I'll talk a little about the book, a little about other things. I saw a poll the other day that said 60 percent of the country wanted to know how Judge Roberts felt about Roe v Wade. It's a settled case. Do you think the country's entitled to know whether he believes that that case was decided correctly?
SANTORUM: You know my feeling is, you have to look at the standard of what's been applied in the past. And what judges in the past have been forced to answer is, you know, how they felt about, you know, sort of the black letter law, if you will. Not really looking at, how would you rule in cases.
BROWN: I'm not asking how you'd rule. This is a settled case. Roe v Wade is a settled case, it is settled. Is this a fair question, do you agree that that case was settled correctly? Is that a fair question to ask him?
SANTORUM: Well, let me put it this way. That question was asked of Judge Ginsberg, it was asked of Judge Breyer and neither of them answered the question.
BROWN: So the answer is no you don't think the country is entitled…
SANTORUM: Well I think, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I mean, it's remarkable that we have an ACLU lawyer, not just someone who -- I mean, an ACLU lawyer who gets a pass on their ideology for the United States Senate and we have a lawyer who is really a lawyer's lawyer, he's been all over the place, is clearly not someone with an agenda and all of a sudden they have to answer litmus test kinds of questions. Is that fair? I would say it's not fair.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS RANTINGS ARE ABOUT.
There is an ACLU lawyer in the Senate.
I would like to know who that is.
I don't mind.
I find it highly objectionable to think John What's his name, Oh, yeah, Roberts. John Robert's is a LAWYER'S LAWYER. I guess that is like being a MAN'S MAN, huh? So a Lawyer's Lawyer is someone who is all over the place in deciding cases. Is that right? Well, I guess you might want to say that to a-kin him to Sandra Day O'Connor, but, there are some of us who weren't born yesterday Ricky.
BROWN: All I want to know is if -- it's really a simple question.
SANTORUM: I'm giving you the answer. The answer is no. If it wasn't answered in the past, it shouldn't be answered in the future.
BROWN: OK. So we're not entitled to know whether he thinks that was settled correctly, no. Why? Isn't that a good thing to know? Because people vote for and against that.
SANTORUM: I think you should know about how a judge makes a decision and what he takes into consideration in making that decision. But as far as applying it to a specific case...
BROWN: Even if that case has been decided?
SANTORUM: Right, you know, I think even if that case has been decided, yeah. I think you want -- you want to look at -- this is not a test of how judges feel about certain issues. You get to elect members of the Congress. We have to answer those questions.
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: No -- well, not the right to privacy as created under Roe v. Wade and all...
BROWN: Do you think there's a right to privacy in the Constitution?
SANTORUM: I think there's a right to unreasonable -- to unreasonable search and seizure...
THIS IS WHERE people like Santorum lose their arguments as they want to see the USA Constitution as a RULE BOOK.
It's not.
It has guidelines to apply to the life we live but it isn't a dictatorial tool.
The Fourth Amendment if you will:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
There is nothing complicated here and where the Religious Right Republican Party wants to 'getcha' is on the definition of 'Probable Cause.'
That is why Texas had a sodomy law. As long as it was illegal for men to make love together by the act in which they chose to express it, they could prove Probable Cause, make homosexuality illegal and jail people. Other than that being a human rights violation raises the issue what happens to repeat offenders.
The Religious Right is trying to 'capture' old 'colonial themes' and apply it to the USA Constitution as if this was a precept to understand the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They do that chronically. It's hideous and poor Justice Souter even felt he needed to defend against it in his argument regarding separating 'church and state.'
The past is not the direction the present takes. It is all too easy to find religious references. PRIMARILY Christian references in Colonial America.
The Jews didn't arrive until the beginning of the 1900s with the immigration movement and the domination of the Nazis in Europe. One of the largest and earliest Jewish congregations to come to this country was Rabbi Max Heller's congregation in New Orleans. Until that point Jews lived among Christians and were primarily poor and rejected by society but as with anything else there was safety and prosperity in numbers. As an asset to the culture and determined need to survive the earliest forms of medicine, law and media (newsprint) was mastered by the Jews.
Those three professions were least advantageous in an agrarian society that met at Church once a week for the news. Colonial America doctored with common sense and horse liniment. All those professions were on the margins and the reason newsprint was important is because it grew out of a community need to share letters from distant relatives. Rabbi Heller developed a huge community that lived very near their synagogue. The professions flourished with shared concerns and ideas. It was out of the Jewish communities these 'wonders' of medicine and communication grew.
And law.
Colonial America didn't concentrate on law the way society does today. The towns were small, the population less, they were gunslingers who ''smoked people out" into the open and then hung them after ganging up on them in a court of law. To practice law opposing judges was a social sin. Jews represented criminals because it was a living no one else wanted to perform. After the Jews arrived in American, the landscape changed dramatically.
No one ever says thank you.
I am not sure when the Muslim faith or Hindu or Buddist showed up in this country but they also lived in sequestered areas where they could worship as they wanted without causing too much oddity as Christians would see them. So, to even TRY to apply Old Colonial Realities to modern day is an outrageous and bigoted thought. The men who wrote the US Consitution were all Caucasian property owners and there were absolutely no women in the process. So, to see the US Constitution as a 'Rule Book' is to be bigoted and why this Evangelical Right Wing Movement does exactly that.
BROWN: For example, if you'd been a Supreme Court judge in Griswold versus Connecticut, the famous birth control case came up, which centered around whether there was a right to privacy. Do you believe that was correctly decided?
Griswold v. Connecticut
381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Docket Number: 496Abstract
Argued:March 29, 1965
Decided:June 7, 1965
Subjects:
Judicial Power: Standing to Sue, Personal Injury
Facts of the CaseGriswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/149/
THERE IS NOTHING COMPLICATED HERE EITHER.
Unless.
You oppose birth control and family planning. Then there is a lot wrong here but that is individual choice and PRIVACY. Get over it.
SANTORUM: No, I don't. I write about it in the book. I don't.
BROWN: The state of Connecticut had the right to ban birth control for a married couple.
SANTORUM: I think they were wrong. It was a bad law.
BROWN: But they had the right.
SANTORUM: They had the right. They had the right…
BROWN: Why would a conservative argue that government should interfere with that most personal decision?S
ANTORUM: I didn't. I said it was a bad law. And...
IT IS BAD LAW according to the Junior Senator because it doesn't match Rich Santorum's belief system.
His ego is so huge here that it fills up every available breathing space in the room.
Mr. and Mrs. Santorum doesn't have to do anything they don't want to and they have no right to impose their beliefs on others. Like I said, ' ... the Republican character is not condusive to democracy.' Bush/Cheney talk about spreading democracy but the way they practice it never brings with it peace.
BROWN: But they had the right to make.
SANTORUM: They had the right to make it. Look, legislatures have the right to make mistakes and do really stupid things...
BROWN: OK.
SANTORUM: ... but we don't have to create constitutional rights because we have a stupid legislature. And that's the problem here, is the court feels like they have a responsibility to right every wrong. When they do that, unlike a Congress, that if we make a really stupid mistake and we do something wrong, we go back next year or next month and change it, and we've done that. Courts don't do that. They only get cases that come before them and they have to make broad, sweeping decisions that have huge impact down the road.So, much self righteousness.
These people don't have modesty.
THAT LAST PARAGRAPH HE SPOKE IS 'JUSTIFICATION' TO REPEATEDLY PRESENT CASE AFTER CASE to the Supreme Court 'thinking' the entire time all the court needs is more exposure to change these decisions. That is how these morons continue to solicit their constituencies by PROMSING this is just the way of reversing 'bad law' and every time we approach the court it changes incrementally better.
"W"rong.
It is high time these legislators set their constituencies straight and tell them the law is set and it's time we live with everyone else and not just our standards.
That's what happened in Griswold. It was a bad law. The court felt, we can't let this bad law stand in place. It's wrong. It was. But they made a -- they created out of whole cloth a right that now has gone far, far from Griswold versus Connecticut.
THIS IS NOT BAD LAW.
However, he is right in stating there are stupid legislators. He provides a magnificent example of one.
BROWN: I'm going to do something I almost never do. The control room just -- we're going to go -- we're going to run long here. This is fun and interesting.
SANTORUM: OK.
BROWN: I want to talk about the thing you said about Boston for a second.
SANTORUM: OK.
BROWN: OK. I don't know if we have this. We can put it on the screen, but you said "when the culture is sick, every element becomes infected. While it is no excuse, the scandal" -- referring to the priest abuse scandal -- "it is no secret that Boston, the seat of academic, political, cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."First of all, wasn't that a little over the top?
SANTORUM: Well, what's over the top is taking a three-year-old article...
BROWN: What's the context?
SANTORUM: And the context was, I was writing about the priest scandal and condemning the priest scandal, condemning the church...
BROWN: Well, of course you were condemning it. No one supports it.
SANTORUM: ... and talking about concrete things we need to do to fix it. I was out there. No other United States senator...
BROWN: Why so -- why Boston?
SANTORUM: Because, again, context. What was going on in 2002 -- not 2005, but in 2002 -- that's where the scandal was. It wasn't anywhere else. We weren't talking about it. In 2002, it was the epicenter. We didn't have the report by the bishops conference. We didn't have…
BROWN: So now you wouldn't say that?
SANTORUM: I wouldn't -- well, no, there's a lot of other cities that were involved. But the point is that cultural liberalism and what I talked about is a contributing factor to how people view sexual activity. And I am not the one that says that. Robert Bennett, in the report that he issued on behalf of the bishops conference, called the Bennett report, said exactly my words, except the word Boston wasn't in it.
BROWN: OK. But you wouldn't say that about Boston now. Is that right? Based on what we know about the scandal.
SANTORUM: I said it then, it was the...
BROWN: Not then, now?
SANTORUM: ... yeah, it was the epicenter, and there are many other cities that that would apply
.… and there are many other cities that that would apply
.… and there are many other cities that that would apply
.… and there are many other cities that that would apply.
THE Rebuglican Right Wing wants to make example of "Blue State Strongholds" like New York City.
Like Boston.
Like San Francisco.
Like Los Angeles.
Like Chicago as 'epicenters' of SIN.
"Sin City" if you will. Bruce Willis made a movie not long ago entitled exactly that. Odd how this party thinks if they introduce a movie to the public it will all be over. The 'idea' behind defaming large cities as areas of sinfulness is to COST them their 'tourist' trade by a large aspect of the population, SUPPOSEDLY, who will boycott these cities until the morality changes. I find it very odd this is a topic of conversation beyond the allotted time considering there was an entire segment on "Paula Zahn NOW" regarding escorts in New York City and one in particular that was featured in "The New Yorker" that billed out at $2000 per hour.
Very odd indeed.
THE bad boys of Aaron and Rick decided on break they could 'get away' with clout enough to stretch the interview.
BROWN: What we were talking about in the break was that -- my belief that actually in many respects, the left and the right talk (INAUDIBLE), but they agree on a lot of things. It takes a child -- it takes a family and it takes a village, in fact, are both true. And I think you'd agree with that.
SANTORUM: And I say that, yeah.
BROWN: Right. And that the left doesn't believe it only takes a village any more than the right believes it only takes a family.
SANTORUM: It's where you start from. I think the left -- the left starts from the top down. Believes in the experts, believes in...
BROWN: What is the basis of that? Why do you believe that?
SANTORUM: Well, I mean, look at institutions dominated by the left. I mean, education.
IF THAT isn't the truth.
The Red States have the highest literacy rates, the highest divorce rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates. I mean no wonder these people are so religious. Nothing else is working for them.
I talk about this very much in the book. I mean, it was created very much as a way of having, you know, social control from the top, and modernizing it to -- into our culture, progressive children, and having state control of education. It's been a battle ever since for local control of schools, versus the experts on top trying to decide for us how to handle...
BROWN: Republican administration -- this -- your administration has exerted more federal control over schools than any in history.
SANTORUM: Yeah. I have serious -- serious problems and have had serious problems with federal legislation. And had very serious concerns about No Child Left Behind…
BROWN: Did you vote for it?
SANTORUM: I voted for it, because what it basically required was accountability. It didn't dictate how we get there. It dictated that you had the measure how you get there. And to me, that is basically holding folks accountable for what they do, as opposed to dictating what they do.
ACCOUNTABILITY.
Not important how you get there, just that you get there, including 'Teaching to the Test,' depriving schools ranked as unattainable from funding and causing greater hardship of those children while the Religious Right takes their chilfren to the 'Charter School' system and 'Voucher Programs.'
Men like Rick Santorum don't care about other children so much as his own and what he has to keep them free of secularism. You know it sort of reminds me of the way Rick Santorum runs his career as a legislator and the way Repuglicans run their agendas.
"It doesn't matter how you get there so long as you do."
BROWN: Do you really think that left and right have a dramatically different view of how a good child is formed?
A GOOD CHILD.
A GOOD CHILD.
Well, where there is a good child I suppose there is a bad child as well.
SANTORUM: I would say yes. The highest virtue of the left in the world today is tolerance, and that is -- that's acceptance of anything, and anything for any reason. Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
Well, I don't believe on the right -- or I don't think most Americans, not just on the right -- I don't think most Americans see it that way.
WE WENT FROM 'RIGHT' to Most Americans. Well, if it's most Americans the only ones left need to change including 'the left' especially considering we all have to have THE SAME VIEW of a Good Child.
They are self righteous at the cost of others freedoms. There way is the only way to them. I've heard it all before.
I think most Americans want people to have certain virtues, honesty, integrity and all those other things.
There may be agreement, and certainly obviously the left wants honesty and integrity, but there is a lot of things they don't accept.Just ahead ,,,, other things to take care of. This is NEWSNIGHT.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Control room's recovering from its heart attack.
The Continued Religious Bigotry of CNN's NewsNight's "Morning Papers"
There was no "Honor Segment for the American Soldiers Dead" tonight.
Washington Post
Washington Times
Christian Science Monitor
Washington Post
Washington Times
Christian Science Monitor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)