Alan Keyes
February 13, 2002

ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Good evening. I am Alan Keyes. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.

We're going to be talking on the show tonight about America in a heightened state of alert and what that means to citizens like you. We'll also be talking about something that has been more on my mind today, as on the minds of many folks watching the evolving controversy over the skating judgment at the Olympics, and whether that poses new questions about the integrity of the Olympic idea. We'll be getting into that a little later in the program.

But first, there have been five major terror alerts that have been issued since September 11, a terrible day of the World Trade Center tragedy and bombing. Just days after the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan began, President Bush issued the first terror alert as a — quote — “general threat to America in the next few days” — unquote. Shortly after that, the FBI issued another warning, but offered no specifics. On November 1, California Governor Davis announced a possible threat to California's bridges. And in December, Tom Ridge said a possible strike tied to the end of Ramadan might occur. One month later that alert was extended through the end of the Olympics, and finally, this week a terror warning was issued with some specifics, including a possible connection to Yemen.

The problem is, of course, that as we have gone through each of these alerts, the question has been on the minds of many of us, why are we being told this? What is the point? What are we upposed to do in response? There has got to be an answer besides “be afraid, be very afraid.” Most of us have been going on with our lives as the president has requested, and in the midst of these alerts, we have still had the sense that we want to do something, something that might contribute constructively to the defense of America, of our homes and communities in this time.

And that's part of a great American tradition that goes all the way back to the days of the minute men in the early revolutionary period, all through the days of the Posse Comitates in the times when people would come forward in defense of their communities, right up to the 1950s when in response to the threat of nuclear attack, we developed a concept of civil defense and taught folks how they might respond in the event of that terrible attack on the United States.

We are going to be looking tonight at this question that's on the heart of many people in America as to what we can constructively do. We will be examining the question of these terror alerts and what their purpose might be. We'll be asking about the role that citizens might or should play in response to these terror threats, and we'll be raising a question that I think is very relevant to our present situation. Should we be rethinking the concept of civil defense? Should we look back on that tradition and ask ourselves whether, in the context of this new and pervasive threat, we ought not to re-examine our tendency in the last several decades to push that into the background? And maybe there is some relevance for us today in those concepts that allowed many Americans to come forward and join in an effort that was aimed at reducing the numbers of casualties from attacks and making sure that there would be a constructive role to be played by each of us in our communities and schools and businesses and in defense of the lives of people in our families.

Joining me right now is Dr. Arthur B. Robinson. He is one of America's foremost experts in civil defense. He is the founder and director of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and he has recently written an article entitled, “Protecting Americans: How the U.S. Government has Shunned Civil Defense Like the Plague” — unquote. It appears in the January issue of Worldnetdaily's Whistleblower” magazine.

Dr. Robinson joins us this evening from Medford, Oregon — Dr.Robinson, welcome to MAKING SENSE and thank you for taking the time to join us.

DR. ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, PH.D, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: Thank you.

KEYES: I will tell folks out there that Dr. Robinson drove how long? It was about an hour and a half — right — to get to the studio to join us tonight. I really want to thank you for making that extra effort.

ROBINSON: Well, it's well worth it. Thank you.

KEYES: Now, tell me, you have written about the concept of civil defense. And in the context of the September 11 attacks, it seems to me a lot of Americans are looking for someone, who might give them a sense of what role can be played by citizens in response to the threat of terrorism. Now, the thinking you have done on civil defense has given you some very definite views as you look back on what had been done in the past and how it might be relevant to today.

What would you say to folks out there who have been thinking about his question in the context of the heightened terror alert? Is there a relevance here in that background?

ROBINSON: Well, it is very important. There is a great relevance, because obviously even with the best efforts of our government, we won't be able to stop all potential incidents. We need to be able to prevent civilian deaths. This can be done through the population educating itself about civil defense procedures, and also our government following the lead of many other governments in installing good civil defense equipment for the American people.

KEYES: Now, when you say civil defense equipment, give us an idea of what you mean by that exactly.

ROBINSON: Well, ideally, civil defense is protection against nuclear, chemical and biological risks that arise because of terrorism, accident or war. Some countries have done a great deal. In Switzerland it is illegal to build a building without chemical, biological and nuclear protection for all of the occupants built into the building in the basement. Other countries, like Scandinavia, have public shelters. China and the Soviet Union have installed a substantial — or now Russia, have installed substantial civil defense systems.

Mostly this involves building shelters, so people can be housed in the case of a threat, and so that their air and water and other environmental parameters could be controlled if the environment outside is dangerous to them.

KEYES: Now, isn't something like that going to be prohibitively expensive, though?

ROBINSON: Well, today a full-fledged Swiss-like civil defense system, the best in the world for the entire American people would probably cost somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion.

KEYES: And that would provide the kind of shelter that would mean we would be equipped in the case of chemical attack, in the event of — how about biological weapons and things of that type?

ROBINSON: That is full protection against chemical, biological and nuclear threats.

KEYES: Yes.

ROBINSON: And of course, it has to be accompanied with a detection program, so that, for example particularly biological threats can be detected when they occur, so the population will know when to occupy the shelters.

KEYES: Well, tell me, though. What does a concept like this mean for the ordinary citizen out there? Is there a role that would then be played by citizens in the context of this kind of gearing up for an effort to reduce casualties? What would it mean to folks living out there with their families, at their businesses, in their schools?

ROBINSON: Well, it would mean that they would have to be educated in the use of the shelters, but it would also mean that they have a place to go. You mentioned the problem. We are warned that there is a threat, danger coming up, but what could you do? There's no place to hide. There is nothing you can do. Without these shelters, people can do a little bit by educating themselves, but if we had good civil defense equipment provided by our government in protecting and providing for the common defense of the American people, then the people would have to be educated in its use. And the actual administration of a shelter system, the administration of a civil defense system is a local matter.

KEYES: And that would be something that would involve teaching people the procedures that would allow them in an orderly way to make their way to such a shelter, the kinds of things that might be done to make sure that order was maintained there and so forth and so on.

ROBINSON: Certainly.

KEYES: And procedures to notify folks when the threat had passed, and they might return to putting their lives back together.

ROBINSON: Correct. You see, civil defense can't save all lives, but it could save between 50 and 90 percent of them in a mass disaster, and that's a lot of people.

KEYES: Now, have you have given any thought to the other side of this equation? Because one of the things that has struck me is that as these alerts have been called, and we are told to be on the lookout and be alert and be vigilant, I think a lot of people are wondering exactly what that means to them. Do you have any thoughts on the side of prevention, on the side of trying to apprehend some of these folks before they have done harm? Is there anything that might be done to help educate people to play a more proactive role in that?

ROBINSON: Well, the Bush administration is, of course, doing everything it can to be proactive, and they are also asking the American people to look out for certain kinds of threats for certain individuals, and so on. There is no doubt this is a great amount that can be done to lower the risk, but since the risk can't be lowered to zero, we need to have something to do when it occurs anyway. And anything the government does, through espionage, through its military action, through educating the population to watch for odd behavior in certain people, this sort of thing, all these things are valuable. You can't ask or expect one approach to stop everything, but you should do everything you can to prevent the incidents and then in the cases where they are not preventable, have some way to save the people's lives anyway.

KEYES: I've got to say this sounds to me very common sensical, and it seems from what you say that given the enormous wealth that we do have and the money that's at the disposal of our federal government, not prohibitively expensive, why is it that we disregarded this approach over the course of the last couple of decades?

ROBINSON: Well, three presidents tried. Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Reagan all wanted to build a good civil defense system, but they were thwarted by Congress. I think the problem has been twofold. One is America has not been attacked on its own land in its own — people in their own homes, for more than a century. So that we haven't felt the threat as many other countries do where wars have been fought in their countries. That's one aspect.

The other aspect is that civil defense is not represented in our defense establishment by a bureaucracy and by an establishment that's for civil defense. So in the equation where the army, navy, air force, marine corps, all of whom are trying to help the country, protect the country, are battling over the limited resources the government has. Civil defense is sort of the odd man out. There is no one advocating expenditures on civil defense.

The Soviets, for example, made the air force, the navy, the army and so forth, civil defense was equivalent to them. It was an equivalent department in their defense department. We have nothing like that.

KEYES: It seems to me, and I think this is one of the reasons that we are focusing on this tonight as a subject, is that in the wake of September 11, there may be a greater openness on the part of folks, both in the government and in the general population to rethink this idea of civil defense and look at its applicability in our present situation, especially in terms of trying to take an approach that not only deals with the aversion of terrorism, that not only deals with cleaning up after the fact, but that tries to put in place something that might help to minimize casualties as we are faced with these kinds of threats.

Thank you so much for joining us tonight and helping to us understand a little better what some of the possibilities are and what the background is of this concept.

Next, we are going to be talking with a panel of folks about this idea. And not everybody agrees that it's a good idea, or that it does make very much sense, and we'll be getting into that question when we get to the heart of the matter.

And later, we'll be looking at the grief over the gold in Salt Lake City, and we'll be taking your phone calls at 1-866-keyes-usa. 1-866-keyes-usa. It will be open lines, whatever is on your minds, so you join us.

But first, does this make sense? In Norway, apparently, they have now been giving Viagra to sex offenders. And one of the folks to whom this Viagra was given on whatever pretext, then later, sadly, was molesting his 16-year-old son. This was a fellow who had been put in prison for incest, and they were giving him Viagra. And now, I've got to tell you, there may be some uses good and bad for something like Viagra. But does it really make sense to be handing this thing out to sex offenders in prison?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I appreciate the courage of most Americans. But we have a responsibility as government to protect the people. And when we see something that we think is credible, we hear something that might be real, we're going to notify the pespective authorities to help harden the targets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: That was the president the day after the California alert. Of course, the general alerts haven't just been notifying authorities and security people. They basically have been telling all of us and announcing to the whole people that there is a problem, there is a danger, there is a heightened threat. We are in the midst of such a situation right now, leaving many of the ordinary folks around the country going about their business, but also asking just what can we do? And what is our role in response to this heightened alert and this heightened state of security?

We are looking at some of the ramifications of that question tonight on the show. And here to help us get further into it and get to the heart of the matter are our guests. Joining us from the city of brotherly love, we have John Timoney, former Philadelphia police chief, and here in Washington, Kevin Watson, spokesman for the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and David McIntyre, deputy director of the Anser Institute for Homeland Security — welcome, everyone, to MAKING SENSE

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, Alan.

KEYES: I think what we are talking about tonight is very much on the minds of a lot of folks in the midst of these alerts, and people asking in a common-sense level, what does this mean to me?

John Timoney, what is the response to that question to folks around the country, who are trying to figure out just what it is that is the point for them of this information that they are given?

JOHN TIMONEY, FMR. PHILADELPHIA POLICE CHIEF: Well, the very first thing, it really is a notification to law enforcement that there's some — particularly yesterday, there is some hard intelligence coming out of Cuba that 14 people, who were identified with pictures, may try to commit some untoward act in America or some American installation, you know, in some foreign country. So first and foremost, it's for law enforcement to make sure they step it up, that they stay alert.

Now, people say we are already on alert. That's true, but I can guarantee you, Alan, the biggest problem that law enforcement has on all of this issue of terrorism is really boredom, because after a while if something doesn't happen in two or three days, you tend to let your guard down. These are alerts. I don't mind them at all. They are a reminder that there are terrorists out there and there are people looking to do harm. And so it's a good reminder for law enforcement and even the average citizen. KEYES: You know, I think folks can really understand how that would be true, and sharing information among the agencies, the departments, with the state and local law enforcement officials, with the emergency folks around the country, who...

TIMONEY: Right.

KEYES: ... might be quickly called upon to respond to an emergency. I guess what I am asking is that the general publication of these kinds of alerts, the press conferences, the attention that's given them, also of course seems to be directed at the general public.

TIMONEY: Correct.

KEYES: And the question then becomes — and Kevin Watson, what is your thought on this? What is the point of these things? What is their purpose with respect to the general public out there?

KEVIN H. WATSON, LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA: Well, first off, it's a catch-22 for law enforcement. I mean, if something happens, and they had information and didn't say it. Then the public says, well, what did you know, when did you know it, and why didn't you tell us?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

WATSON: So it's just asking people to maintain some extra vigilance. It's vigilance that got that 20th hijacker, when he was attempting to take flight lessons. So it's little things like that that we are looking for.

KEYES: Dave McIntyre, do you think there is something further that might be done in the context that I was discussing with my previous guest, the concept of civil defense, the tradition Americans have of playing a pro-active role in defense of their own communities? What do you think citizens might look for or do? What might the government be doing to help structure the activities of citizens in this context?

DAVE MCINTYRE, ANSER INST. FOR HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, I would make a couple points, Alan. The first point that's important to understand is sometimes we score successes, and we don't know it. I mean, another way to think of the catch-22 is the most successful alert is the one where the individual who might attack us is scared off by the fact that an alert was raised.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

MCINTYRE: And so we will never know about that. What citizens can do is be alert. They need to think about something that just doesn't seem right. Look, if you drive a cab, you know what an average fare is like. If you get one that's just not right, you need to tell somebody. If you rent trucks, you know what an average person is like who rents a truck. If you rent crop dusters, you know the answer to that. And so you can listen to things.

You know, for submariners, one of the things that submariners do is they don't listen for a new noise. They listen for what's normal. And then when there's something not normal, they say what was that? Well, that's kind of what these alerts do for us. We know what normal life is like, what a normal person looks like in a mall. And when we see somebody, or we hear something that's just not right, it ought to get our attention. Does that driver's license look real or does that look fake?

KEYES: Well, you know, Dr. Robinson raised a question about in the context of our tradition, in the context of the kind of response we saw in the 1950s, the fact that we are once again faced on the home front with the possible threats that range from the kind of attacks in New York all the way up to the use of weapons of mass destruction.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

KEYES: Is this an era when we need to rethink the idea of civil defense, see what its relevance might be in our present context? Dave, what do you think?

TIMONEY: Alan — oh, I'm sorry.

KEYES: No, go ahead — whoever.

TIMONEY: Yes, John Timoney. Alan, I mean, the cost of civil defense really has been institutionalized under the office of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Every big city has an office of emergency management, so those tasks that traditionally or historically were handled by civil affairs have now been professionalized, institutionalized. Lots of money, contrary to what Mr. Robinson said, an awful lot of money, billions of dollars are being spent on training and equipment, on resources. It was FEMA, the regional FEMA that responded to the World Trade Center (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to Oklahoma City.

KEYES: But I think...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I agree with that.

KEYES: There is maybe a misunderstanding though, because I think that he recognizes that, as we all do, and I think are very grateful for it. But that places an emphasis on what you are doing in response to an attack, what you are doing in the way of cleaning up afterwards...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Alan, can I...

KEYES: ... and dealing with that kind of a problem. I guess the question I am raising is the concept of civil defense also had a component that was aimed at trying to reduce the number of casualties in these attacks, so that when you're in the midst of a situation that might be escalating, there would be procedures that people could follow that might minimize the dangers that they would face.

MCINTYRE: Alan...

KEYES: Dave McIntyre, is there some relevance in that concept today?

MCINTYRE: Yes. You bet, Alan. There are a number of things that can be done that don't only have to do with protections and shelters. And I think while FEMA does a great job, we are facing a threat that's unlike anything we have ever faced before, and it's going to go on and on for a long period of time. We are going to have to find new ways to adjust.

Now, there is a huge amount of manpower that's available to us out there to do some things that might have to be done in emergencies. Let's take one example. If we were to face a biological attack, we're going to have to find some way to distribute antibiotics. But we don't want to turn to the police and fire. They are going to have their hands full to do that. Who would, on an emergency — in an emergency distribute those antibiotics? And how would we get them out?

Well, one way to do that is to make use of our churches, of our rotary clubs, to get our lion's clubs together, to prepare them ahead of time, to report to schools and help do distribution. Those are the kinds of things we can think through. It doesn't require to you put out a fire or great physical exertion. If you want to do patrols, all you need are radios in some cases. You don't have to have armed people.

So there are a number of things citizens can help in. What we haven't done yet is think through how to use that extra manpower. And I've got to tell you, it's going to be a couple years before we really do come to those conclusions.

TIMONEY: But, Alan, if I may jump in.

KEYES: Sure.

TIMONEY: I mean, part of the problem certainly up to September 11, the issue of high rise buildings, terrorists are going to strike where they can get a symbolic building and a high body count. And so, for example, in Philadelphia for a week afterwards, we saw on bomb scares buildings evacuated by themselves. Some nut — there is a need right across America, particularly in high rise buildings to have a uniform policy...

KEYES: Yes.

TIMONEY: .. when to evacuate, when not to. So there is a whole education that needs to take place there.

KEYES: Well, see, I think that in fact this is all part of the same question.

TIMONEY: Right.

KEYES: I remember on the day that these attacks took place, September 11. There was a sort of sickening period of time when I don't think anybody was sure how far this was going to go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

KEYES: When there was a sense of anxiety and apprehension that spread to other cities around the country and so forth and so on. In the midst of that, a system where we had, in fact, educated and organized our citizenry, in order to be prepared for the kind of implications of a blow like this, where you had evacuations and also possibly a network of shelters where appropriate. That would mean that in that kind of a situation, people would have a sense of what to do in response, and there would be something we could do to try to minimize casualties if there were other threats developing.

Kevin Watson, is there sense in this or not?

WATSON: Well, you know, Alan, I am really rather surprised to see you, of all people, promoting the creation of this major federal bureaucracy. I think there is a lot of stuff that we can already do at the state and local level, where folks can get involved, whether it's volunteering at the Red Cross or working with community programs in the police department. Philadelphia has got some great community programs up there from police explorers to the police clergy program. There are lots of things people can do right now that folks can get involved.

But the idea of creating this federal civil service bureaucracy is really something that seems more of a problem than a solution.

KEYES: Well, I have to confess...

(CROSSTALK)

WATSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the federal government...

KEYES: ... point of personal privilege, though, because that's not what I said. I think talking about the concept of civil defense and especially what might be the infrastructure that you need to put in place. I think that's an appropriate federal role. How you organize folks to take advantage of that infrastructure I think would put the emphasis on state and local involvement, initiative, organization. It wouldn't have to be a big federal bureaucracy, so don't get me wrong. But I think that's exactly the sort of thing we would need to think through.

MCINTYRE: What the federal government can do, Alan, is help to us create standards. That's a very important point. They can create standards.

A second thing they can do is provide seed money. That is those people, who have some ideas of how they can execute those standards, advance your programs up through the budget cycle and let's get some seed money.

A third thing they can do is provide conductivity, so that we can share best practices and lessons learned. There are a lot of people doing very good work in cities, counties and states around the country, but there isn't a good system to exchange and coordinate that information.

Now, a fourth thing they can do is occasionally inspect. Not everybody is going to like that, but the citizens are going to need some kind of outside organization, occasionally, to take a look at what their emergency facilities are like. Some way to evaluate, so they can then come back to their own local elected leaders and reward those leaders who have taken good care and been good stewards of the public money and punish those leaders who haven't.

KEYES: So that means, by the way, that we are taking an approach — and I think I would certainly place the emphasis on this — that while it does have to be I think led by the federal government — after all, they have responsibility at that level for the kind of threats that come to us from abroad, even when they end up pointing to us here at home. And I think organizing folks around the country, getting their involvement, structuring it, all of that would reflect, however, what I think is fundamental here — that we do have confidence in the people of this country in terms of the response that they would make, if we called upon them to play this kind of role.

Do you all feel like that kind of confidence is justified? John Timoney, do you think that's right?

TIMONEY: Well, anytime you can get citizen participation, citizen buy-in, it's good. However, trust me, you haven't been in law enforcement. I have for 35 years. The idea of depending — when the rubber hits the road, depending on volunteers who may want to get their kids at school or a whole host of things. They have got their own problems. It's problematic. And so, the idea of professionalizing or institutionalizing either FEMA, Office of Emergency Management is the way to go. However, there is room for much more citizen involvement, and I agree with you.



KEYES: I have to tell you that I confess that the sense that folks out there in the midst of an emergency would not be able to prioritize and respond to the call of their community, if in advance they had already said that this was going to be a role they were willing to play. I think we can have confidence that people in this country would answer the call, and the notion that you have to substitute professionalization for the kinds of things people might be able to do for themselves is one of the things that I think reflects a declining confidence in our people, a declining confidence in their capacity for self-government, because in the end, the root of self-government is that kind of capacity for self-defense and accepting the discipline that's required in defense of your own community. I frankly think the American people do have it, if we are willing to challenge them in the right way.

Gentlemen, thank you so much — appreciate your joining us tonight for a very constructive discussion.

Not everything that is done in these contexts should or must be done in the midst of all kinds of controversy and so forth. I think we are a people getting together to try to think through a very serious challenge to our survival in the best way we know how. And, gentlemen, thank you for joining with me tonight in that spirit.

Next, we're going to take a look at the storm that is raging in Salt Lake City over the skating controversy at the Olympic Games. Was the pairs competition fixed? And does it matter? I think it matters a great deal.

We are also going to take a look at what's on your mind later. Call me at 1-866-keyes-usa. Tonight, open lines — any topic that's on your mind, please call in and we'll discuss it.

But first, does this make sense? There is a student newspaper in Pennsylvania where they have actually refused to print an ad that was promoted by a group of — well, a relatively conservative women's group, the International Women's Forum. And they wanted to encourage people to give up going to a pornographic play that was there on campus, and instead celebrate Valentine's Day with a date, with some romance. It's fascinating, isn't it? The newspaper said that they couldn't print this ad, because it was inflammatory. So today, if you tell people not to go see pornography, it's inflammatory. Does this make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Those are live pictures coming to us from Salt Lake City where a story has developed in the course of the day that everybody's talking about: the figure skating controversy at the Olympic games.

The games are supposed to stand for all kinds of high aspirations and ideals, but, today, some questions are raised that could have an impact on that sense of the Olympic ideal.

Before we go to Salt Lake City to a guest who has the inside scoop, I want to share with you some background from NBC News correspondent David Bloom.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID BLOOM, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Tonight, figure skating's governing body, the International Skating Union, says that it will launch an inquiry into last night's questionable judging that resulted in the Canadian figure skating pair winning not gold but silver here in Salt Lake City.

BLOOM (voice-over): Sources inside the investigation tell NBC News that at a routine post-competition judges meeting Tuesday morning, the French judge, Marie Reine Le Gougne, who cast her vote for the Russian figure skating pair, said she' been pressured to do so by the French figure skating association.

Astounded by this extraordinary admission, the American referee wrote to the president of the International Skating Union, Ottavio Cinquanta, informing him of possible cheating in the judging of Monday night's pairs figure skating competition where first place was awarded to the Russian pair, Elena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze, stunning many neutral observers who believed the Canadian pair, Jamie Sale and David Pelletier, deserved the gold.

Today, ISU President Cinquanta, while refusing to name names, said he personally confronted the accused judge who denied the charges.

OTTAVIO CINQUANTA, ISU PRESIDENT: Put yourself in my position. I have an allegation, and I have a denial.

BLOOM: Today, the Canadian Olympic team said it would formally appeal the results of Monday night's competition in hopes of overturning the results and awarding a second gold medal to Sale and Pelletier.

MICHAEL CHAMBERS, COA PRESIDENT: We are alleging that there were inappropriate actions taken with respect to the judging. We don't have any conclusive evidence that would “prove” that, quote-unquote, right now.

BLOOM: Skating officials said that appeal will be heard next Monday and left open the possibility that the results could be changed. And Cinquanta promised swift action, if, indeed, a judge did cheat.

CINQUANTA: In the case we discover, we find something improper, then we will be very tough.

BLOOM (on camera): But, tonight, Olympic officials say that because the judging of figure skating is inherently subjective and because this involves what's called a field of play question, it's highly unlikely the Russians would ever be forced to return their gold medals.

David Bloom, NBC News, Salt Lake City.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEYES: Joining us now from Salt Lake City is Mike Celizic, a contributor to msnbc.com.

Welcome to MAKING SENSE, Mike. And thanks for joining us tonight.

Put this in context a little bit for us. Obviously, there have been controversies before over judging, particularly in these areas where the judging seems so subjective. What is different about this controversy that really seems to have stoked a different kind of interest, both in the public and in the Olympic context?

MIKE CELIZIC, MSNBC.COM: Well, I think it's a smoking gun, or if the gun isn't exactly smoking, at least it has — it's been fired, and that is the French judge — this allegation that the French judge said that she was forced to vote in compliance with her confederation.

And the French want to win the ice dancing gold medal. The Russians want to win the pairs gold medal. And the speculation immediately after the performance, immediately after those scores were posted was that this was a deal.

And then, subsequently, more information comes out, and you have the feeling, at any moment now, the dam's going to break, and we're going to hear a lot more.

But that's the difference, that there actually is a concrete allegation.

KEYES: Well, Mike, tell me, though. What was meant — and the first thing I remember occurring to me when I heard the reports — what is meant when a judge would come forward and say that she was forced to do X, Y, and Z? What kind of force is she talking about?

CELIZIC: Well...

KEYES: What kind of compulsion might she be talking about?

CELIZIC: You want to stay a judge. These people have worked all their lives and have hung around rinks and suffered chilled manes (ph) and rheumatism and everything else from standing on cold ice, even in fur coats, to get to where they are.

And this is, you know, at the pinnacle of their profession. It's not even a profession really. It's, you know, a part-time job. And they get great — you know, there's great benefits to doing this, great travel, hotels, gifts, and all the rest of this stuff.

KEYES: But where would the pressure come from then? Who would have the kind of...

CELIZIC: The pressure would...

KEYES: ... power that could affect their career in that way?

CELIZIC: The French federation could drop her as a judge.

KEYES: Now we have also heard sort of, in the course of developing this story, about the possibility that the pressure arose because there was some kind of deal that was made behind the scenes between the French and the Russians. What's going on there?

CELIZIC: Well, that's where the allegation is, that the — and that's the root of why she was pressured, and that is that the French have an ice dancing team that they want to win the gold medal. The Russians want the gold medal in the pairs, and the pairs competition was extremely close.

You had the last two world champions in Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze and Pelletier and Sale out there on the ice. So there was no guarantee. There wasn't one clearly better than the other. So if you can get yourself a little edge, if the East votes with the East, the West votes with the West, and the French vote with you, you've got the gold medal.

KEYES: Well — but that sort of gives us the impression, if that were true — and, obviously, these are allegations — that instead of deciding things by making the best judgment you can, even in a close call, that we're in the midst of negotiating the outcomes at the Olympic games?

I mean, that impression, I think, is disturbing a lot of folks as they look at this situation. Has this sort of thing been hinted at or implied at previous Olympic games, or is it something new?

CELIZIC: Oh, certainly. This goes back as long as figure skating. I only got involved in the sport in 1984, but it, certainly, was rampant then, and it is now.

Some of it is very subtle because the judges — they go to practices. They follow the tours. They watch these people practice. They talk to them. They become friends with them. They form favorites.

Sometimes somebody will go in as the favorite, the person who's supposed to win, and unless they skate the program on their butts, they're going to win it because the judges perceive that they're the best in the world and they're not going to let one slip in a competition keep them from getting the gold medal the judges think they deserve.

So, I mean, it was kind of funny, at the beginning of this, there was an intro saying, “Were the results fixed?” and I don't know if the results were fixed, but the system is certainly broken.

KEYES: Well, tell me something. Is there much likelihood that there's going to be a fair and objective investigation, that someone will make an attempt to get to the bottom of this, and that, at the end of it, we'll have a sense that we got to the truth, or is this just going to become another one of those controversy that sort of clouds events without being resolved?

CELIZIC: Well, I would hope that the figure — the International Skating Union has gotten the message loud and clear that they have not only a responsibility here but an opportunity as well, because it's — the system has needed fixing.

There is a proposal, in fact, on the docket with the skating union to revise the skating — the judging standards, to perhaps take out some of the leeway that they give judges, to give them less room to fiddle with the marks, to make it less subjective and more objective, and I think that now will certainly pass.

But they have to go beyond it. I mean, when you hear investigation, you think congressional investigation, and then you hear the Canadians calling for an independent investigation, and you think independent prosecutor, and who knows where that goes.

KEYES: Well, I thank — Mike, thank you for those thoughts. I really appreciate your joining us tonight. It's something that's been on the minds of many of us, and the reason, I think, is quite clear, and it's one that I am sure many folks, including yourself, will understand.

The Olympics are supposed to represent an ideal that we achieve because all of us can join together in the superb performances and folks who are reaching out of themselves after much hard work to achieve a kind of perfection that speaks to our humanity across all boundaries, and that's what the idea is supposed to be.

If, instead, it's being decided in the back rooms by all kinds of negotiations, whether national ambitions override the sense that we are really trying to get a judgment that is based on a quality performance, then it would seem like all that effort is being degraded.

It would seem as if a barrier is placed between our hearts yearning for that affirmation of our common humanity and the actual results at the Olympics, where interposed between the perfection and the achievement and the truth is this reality of squalid politics deterring folks from coming to a judgment that is actually their best judgment of how these young folks have done.

I think they need to understand that this isn't just another kind of event. There are so many things being sullied in this world today that a lot of us feel heartbroken at the thought that the Olympics, in addition to everything else — because there was already a cloud about the placement, all this other stuff, but it didn't seem to touch the heart of what the Olympic idea is supposed to be about.

I think this does touch the heart, and if they find that there is truth to it, I personally believe that the countries willing to engage in that sort of swapping ought to be banned from the Olympics for a while to teach everybody the necessary respect for the Olympic idea.

Let these young people compete and let the results speak for themselves. Let the judges stand on their independence, at least in every forum, and if the Olympic committees from different countries get involved in sullying that, then I think there ought to be some strong punitive action taken to preserve the Olympic idea.

Next up, what's on your mind? Call me on any topic that's on your mind. We have open lines tonight at 1-866-KEYES-USA. 1-866-KEYES-USA.

You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.

Now let's go find out what's on your mind. We first start with Louise in Canada.

Welcome to MAKING SENSE, Louise.

LOUISE: Hi.

KEYES: Hi. What's on your mind?

LOUISE: I have a question. I love your show, by the way.

KEYES: Thank you.

LOUISE: Why, when a blatant injustice was committed to the Canadian pair skaters, should we as parents encourage our children to participate in a sport that is clearly driven by money, greed, and politics?

KEYES: As put there, I would have to tell you, Louise, I think the answer to that question is no, but it's still a question about the Olympics. I think a lot of folks are participating, preparing, putting their heart into it with a great deal of integrity, and it's because of those folks, I think, that the Olympics idea continues to have some vitality.

It looks like some of the people at the top may not be caring as much about that integrity as a lot of the people who participate in the process, and we've seen that over the course of the last several years. There's definitely a cloud hanging over the Olympic idea, and this controversy adds to that impression, and I think that's a terrible thing.

And your call there ought to be giving these people some pause because I don't think you're alone. I think it has an effect on people around the world looking at this, asking themselves whether or not this is something that constitutes any longer the kind of thing that really are lifting their children up to a higher plane, a virtue as well as something that might offer all kinds of materialistic opportunities.

So I think that that's — it's a good question, and I hope they'll take it seriously as they respond to this controversy. Appreciate your call.

Kevin in Pennsylvania, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

KEVIN: Thank you, Alan. Alan, it's time that this country change its position on the millions of law-abiding gun owners out here who can prevent some terrorist incidents from happening. I mean, the liberal media demonizes us, and this is ridiculous.

I mean, the threat is real for these people, these terrorists, these perpetrators to go into a restaurant and open up, and people like us can prevent something like this from happening, and the police cannot be everywhere, and the — you know, the militia is defined in the Constitution and should be leveraged.

KEYES: Well, I happen to be one of those folks who believes strongly in the American tradition of self-defense, and I think that the suspicion we have of ourselves in terms of firearms is one of those things that indicates that we may be getting weary of our liberty.

I have often asked people, given that the folks who go into the police and go into the military and other security areas come from the same population as the rest of us, if this population can't be trusted with firearms, why can they be trusted?

It's a really serious question. You're going to tell me that the general population is untrustworthy but that out of that population you're going to select people, give them a monopoly on the possession of firearms, and then say we can trust them.

If we can trust them, then we can trust the people of the country, and I think it's time we understood that and began to devise responsible ways to take advantage of the fact that America is a country in which many folks have both the will, the responsibility, the background, the training to be there in the event that we are faced with an element of this pervasive threat in our own community.

I think that ought to be part of our thinking as we answer the question what we need to do in terms of our own defense.

Let's go to Ed in Ohio.

Ed, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

ED: Hi. How are you? In light of all the things that have been going on, terrorism in the United States, how do we protect our borders and our country without trampling over people's constitutional rights to privacy and without profiling them?

KEYES: Well, I think that that's one of the tougher questions. My priority would be to make sure that we are respecting basic rights and that we act in a way that has some integrity.

But, at the same time, I think we need to use common sense, identifying on the basis of experience what kinds of folks might be the source of greater threat and allowing people to act on that common sense.

I don't think that that constitutes racial profiling. I think it constitutes developing categories based on your experience that can then help to guide your judgment, and if we're not willing to apply that common sense, I think we're going to waste a lot of time, effort, energy, and resources.

And, at the same time, we may be making our efforts to stop the terrorists less effective because we're spending so much time looking where they're not, and that would be a serious mistake.

Let's go to Ward in Nebraska.

Ward, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

WARD: Thank you for taking my call, sir. As a member of Ted Nugent United Sports Men of America, I believe the fundamental role of the federal government is to protect and defend the citizens of America, and I want to know why you believe our federal government has gutted the civil defense program over the past 20 years. Thank you.

KEYES: I am not sure of the reason. I think civil defense became, over the course of the last 20 years, an unpopular concept. I believe that underlying it all there was a sense which took place in the context of the debate over strategic weapons that somehow mutually assured destruction wasn't going to be effective as a deterrent if populations weren't left open and exposed.

So, in effect, in a quiet way, this question was subsumed under the question of whether or not there should be any kind of strategic defense. I think, as we become more sensible, more realistic in our approach to the concept of strategic defense, the idea that it's quite legitimate to provide for some defense that will reduce casualties among our population will come forward once again and be accepted for what I think it is, a kind of common-sense approach that we need to develop as part of our comprehensive effort to achieve domestic security.

Next on a personal note, I'll be talking a little bit about Enron and the campaign-finance reform juggernaut that is now sadly moving forward to role roughshod over grassroots activism in America.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: You're looking at what takes place under the cupola over there of that building you see over my shoulder every night. They are wrestling with the amendments to the campaign-finance reform bill.

Now they announced today that it looks like President Bush is going to step aside and let this juggernaut role over the grassroots. I am personally disappointed in that.

I also think that we might have a better sense of the integrity of what's happening here if we could be sure that my argument last night that Enron involves no political corruption were correct. Questions are being raised about that as people watch what's going on, and they're asking themselves why the White House, for instance, has been reluctant to talk about and make public the contacts that they had with Enron.

I think the whole process would inspire a lot more confidence that something political wasn't going on if we got the whole truth about what, in fact, has happened because I think it will be disappointing if it turns out that this was the result not of real respect for grassroots needs but of some kind of deal that was made through political motivation.

That's my sense of it.

Thank you for being with me tonight.