MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesApril 30, 2002
ALAN KEYES, MSNBC HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, the deal involving American and British monitors in the Middle East. Today, American, British, and Palestinian officials met to finalize a plan to move six prisoners to a Palestinian prison in Jericho. Five of the men are wanted in connection with the killing of an Israeli cabinet minister. And Israel claims that the sixth engineered the January shipment of 50 tons of illegal weapons to Palestinians.
Unarmed monitors — yes, unarmed monitors — from the U.S. and the U.K. will be stationed in the Jericho prison as part of an agreement to end the Israeli siege of Arafat's Ramallah compound and allow him to come and go freely. But exactly what will the role of these monitors be?
Here's what the “Wall Street Journal” had to say in its lead editorial today: “President Bush is also taking a risk with his pledge to allow U.S. and British wardens to serve as monitors in the region. Mr. Arafat has always wanted foreign observers as a way to neutralize Israeli defense forces from striking back after terrorist attacks against Israelis. We also hope this a setup for another Beirut Marine barracks disaster.”
I think that the “Wall Street Journal” has raised the two most important questions about this deal, the first one being will the monitors be monitors or shields, shields that is for ongoing organization of Palestinian terrorist activities? After all, you and I both know that it's quite possible to continue to mastermind criminal activities from prison. It unhappily happens with organized crime figures all the time. The fact that these prisoners will be in a prison in the midst of friendly territory where a lot of people, official and unofficial, support their terrorist activities will make it even worse.
And there is also the question that since they're unarmed in the midst of a situation where unarmed civilians are constantly gunned down, what if one of these Palestinian extremist organizations or terrorist organizations takes it in their hands to kill these folks in order to embarrass the process? What then?
We've seen that kind of thinking take its toll before in the Middle East. What safeguards are there against it?
Joining us now, two Palestinian negotiators, Diana Buttu, a legal adviser to the PLO. She negotiates with Israel on the issue of refugees and compensation. Also, Michael Tarazi, legal and communications adviser to the PLO. Later on, I will be talking to former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens, so stay tuned.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE to both of you. I really appreciate you coming on tonight.
DIANA BUTTU, LEGAL ADVISER TO PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: Thank you.
MICHAEL TARAZI, PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: Thank you.
KEYES: And the first question that I would like to put is the one, in fact, that immediately after this deal I put to the chief PLO spokesman in the United States. President Bush has made it clear that Yasser Arafat is free to come and go. He is under a burden and responsibility not just to condemn, but actively to thwart terrorism, to discourage it, undermine it, capture those who commit it. Are we going to see that kind of activist approach on the part of Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to end the reign of terror that we see?
TARAZI: Well, the question, if I can address it, if you don't mind, the question, first of all, you have to ask is, what exactly can Arafat do right now considering that the Israelis have destroyed the entire security infrastructure over the invasion of the last month?
The second question is, who is going to be the judge of what President Arafat actually does? If it's Sharon, we can be assured that he will never be satisfied with anything the Palestinians do. If we can get a neutral third party in who can say, yes, here's what the Palestinians can do, and here's what they've done, then we have a chance of actually seeing progress on the ground.
KEYES: But, Michael, one of the problems that I have always had is that when you're negotiating with somebody to produce a result, you assume that they have the capacity to deliver on the deal. If I'm selling a house, I presume that somebody has the capacity to pay for it. If you're telling me that Yasser Arafat cannot stop these terrorist activities, that means he doesn't have the money in the bank to pay for any deal with Israel. So, why on earth would anybody be negotiating a peace with him that he can't deliver on?
TARAZI: Well, you have to remember that we did deliver it in 1998 when Israel had the most secure year it ever had since the occupation of Palestinian territory began in 1967. The problem is that Israel didn't deliver. The Palestinians remained under occupation.
So, the problem was that it broke down. And that's what we need to do to really address the question of Israeli security. We have to understand that Israel will never be fully secure until the Palestinians are fully free. And we have to address both sides of that equation.
Palestinians are asking themselves the mirror question of what you just asked. What guarantee do we have that Israel can really deliver to us our freedom? We haven't seen it. In fact, they continue building settlements inside occupied Palestinian territory in violation of international law, in violation of U.S. policy, and using American funds. That doesn't bode well for Israel to be able to deliver its end of the deal.
KEYES: Well, let me go to Diana Buttu and ask a follow-up question because it does seem to me, I hear what Michael Tarazi said. And it suggests to me that basically we've got a situation here where the Palestinians are saying, “If we don't get what we want politically, the terror will go on. The killing will continue. And that's just the way it's going to be. You might as well accept it.”
But if Yasser Arafat does, in fact, have control over those terrorist activities, doesn't he bear a responsibility to demonstrate that in point of fact he can stop the killing, because Israel has already demonstrated with Egypt that it will keep a deal once it's made. But Arafat has shown no ability to keep a deal once made. Doesn't this pose a tremendous obstacle, Deanna?
BUTTU: Well, you're making an assumption that he's actually involved in those terrorist activities. And there's never been any evidence to demonstrate that he is involved.
But beyond that, I think the broader question is one that Michael has posed, which is that there is a link between Israel's lack of security and the Palestinian lack of freedom. What we've seen for the past year-and-a-half, and in fact for the past 35 years, is that we've always addressed Israel's security and never addressed Palestinian freedom.
If we're truly interested in creating peace, if we're truly interested in having a stable Middle East, then we're going to have to address both sides of that equation. And that means that we are going to, in fact, have to address Palestinian freedom as well as Israel's security.
KEYES: See, this is what I don't understand, Diana, because it seems to me that along the way we have seen agreements that resulted in the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. We saw agreements that gave control of 90 percent of the territory...
BUTTU: Well, that's just (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: ... let me finish, please — to Palestinian Authority. We saw efforts to cooperate that recognized the role of Palestinian security forces. We even saw the United States come out and talk explicitly about what it was necessary to have a Palestinian state. I don't think that this has been as one-sided as you're portraying it.
BUTTU: Well, actually, if I can just get to your underlying assumption, in fact it is something that hasn't been working because the Palestinians don't, in fact, control 90 percent of the West Bank. We only control roughly 18 percent of the West Bank.
And even that 18 percent of the West Bank is not one contiguous area. It's 13 separate areas that are completely divided and controlled and surrounded by Israel. So, we only have security over that 13 percent. Israel has security — Israel is required to maintain security for the remaining percentage.
KEYES: Well, Diana, we're talking — we're talking a little bit at cross purposes here, aren't we? What...
BUTTU: Well, no, let me just get to how...
KEYES: ... on the map, wait a minute, on the map when you say that, what exactly are you referring to, 18 percent? Israel controls more. What are you referring to?
BUTTU: ... the map that you have up is misleading, sir. What the Palestinians are in control of is Area A, and Area A is only 18 percent of the West Bank. The map that you are now showing is Areas A and B. And Areas A and B is a much more substantial area.
KEYES: Are you telling me that Palestinians won't be happy until they control areas A and B?
BUTTU: Well, what we're supposed to control is Areas A, B, and C, which is the entire West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip. This is land that was occupied by Israel in 1967, land that the entire international community has said that Israel must return back to the Palestinians. This is simply what we've been asking for since 1967.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, if I can address just a comment to both of you, I often hear folks talk as if Resolution 242, for instance, required Israel's withdrawal from all the territories that it had captured in 1967. But that's not how the resolution is worded, as a matter of fact. I think we actually have it on file somewhere, if folks could find it and put it up there, in which the exact wording of the resolution makes clear that there is a reciprocity required here, and that in point of fact Israel is called upon to withdraw from territories in exchange for existence of secure, recognized borders.
Do we have that, you all? Can we throw it up there? We don't have it? OK.
But...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... recognized borders. That does not sound like the Israelis withdraw first, and then the killing stops.
TARAZI: Alan, let me address that point. It's not Security Council Resolution 242 that really governs here. There is also another principal international law that says you cannot acquire territory through force. That's why Iraq, for example, was not allowed to hold onto parts of Kuwait the way Israel is trying to hold onto parts of the Palestinian territories occupied in '67.
KEYES: Michael, Michael, I am sorry...
BUTTU: Alan...
KEYES: ... wait a minute here, wait a minute here. I am sorry. When you are aggressed upon by somebody and in consequence of your response to that war of aggression you end up sitting on their territory, you are not required simply to give it up apart from actual negotiated peace. When we were in Germany, when we were in Japan at the end of World War II, there was no requirement that we give up that occupation until an actual peace agreement determined the terms on which we would withdraw. And to say otherwise departs from international law.
BUTTU: Did we ask Kuwait to negotiate? Did we ask Kuwait to negotiate with Iraq? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we certainly did not. In fact, it was the opposite. We had United Nations resolutions. We fought an entire war to ensure that every inch of Kuwaiti territory was given back to Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait.
KEYES: Diana, I am sorry. You keep missing the point. In 1967, the Arab state banded together in a war of aggression. They got soundly defeated in that war of aggression. They were Saddam Hussein. And Israel was in the position of Kuwait being aggressed against. The fact that the king of Jordan, even after the Israelis asked him not to, got involved in that aggression and then lost the West Bank, it was his lookout for getting involved in that war of aggression. Don't try to get us to forget that because I don't forget that history.
TARAZI: Well, Alan, unfortunately you never really knew that because that's not the case. If you take a look into Israeli historians' accounts, take a look at Avi Schleiman (ph), an Israeli historian, that talks very clearly about what the conditions were with respect to why Israel attacked Jordan and Syria in particular that did not pose a threat to Israel at the time.
But that's beside the point, Alan. The real point is that — so Israel takes control of the territory. Does it mean it has the right then to build settlements on that territory, to deny freedom to the Palestinians who live on that territory, to discriminate against them, to take water resources, to torture them? That's not a defensive proposition — that then because offensive. That then means that they want to hold on to this territory...
KEYES: Michael...
(CROSSTALK)
TARAZI: ... no, Alan, you've got to let me finish here...
KEYES: ... Michael, you are making...
TARAZI: ... Alan, you need to know one thing, Alan. The people in the West Bank, you have three million Palestinians — Christians and Muslims — who have no political or civil rights inside Israel for one reason. And that's because they're the wrong religion.
BUTTU: Absolutely.
TARAZI: That does not get justified...
KEYES: Michael, Michael...
TARAZI: ... by the '67 war.
KEYES: ... first of all, I do not believe that those West Bank territories ought to remain under Israel's permanent control or sovereignty. I think, in fact, that would be suicide for Israel, among other things.
But I also don't believe that the Israelis should relinquish that territory until an — unless they're sitting down with someone who can actually give them the promised peace, rather than a continuation of war.
BUTTU: Well, that's just it, Alan. We've recently seen with the Saudi initiative that was passed by 22 — the entire Arab League, 22 neighbors — that they're actually saying this very issue, which is withdraw to the '67 borders, withdraw from all of the territory that you occupied, and you will have peace. And you will have not only peace, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: Diana, Diana, hold on a second. We're right up against a break. We're going to come right back, though, so you'll get a chance to continue.
Everybody stay with us. We're going to continue with our guests after this. And we're going to talk, as I said, with the former Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Arens. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: We must make sure that human beings are not cloned. We also must not stand in the way, secondly, of scientific advances that hold the promise of treatment and cures for literally millions of Americans and others worldwide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was Senator Orrin Hatch as he today joined senators from both sides of the aisle that would mandate the destruction of human embryos in cloning research. That's right. We would have to abort these embryos. Let's see, you create a life for research, then you destroy it because the law forces you to abort it. Does that make sense? We're going to debate that in our next half-hour.
A reminder that the chat room is rocking tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, we're going to continue our discussion about the Mid-East deal and the overall situation in the Mid-East in the wake of Yasser Arafat's release. Still with us, Diana Buttu and Michael Tarazi, both legal advisers and negotiators for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. And joining us now also, Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown University.
Now, Charles, I have a question that I'm dying to ask you. But I must, before we get to it, get back to Michael and Diana with one question about the Saudi proposal that just continually is on my mind because, like others, I heard it. And it sounded on the surface pretty good. But then I heard all the Arab leaders talking about the right of return and implying that that included the right of return to Israel proper. Then I heard other Palestinians spokesman talking about the South African parallels between Israel and South Africa.
And then I realized that that plan was actually a trap. And if the right of return is understood in that way, the aim is simply to set Israel up with insecure borders so that after a Palestinian majority is established within Israel proper, one can agitate for the destruction for the Jewish character of the state of Israel. Why should the Israelis accept such a future? Michael, Diana?
TARAZI: Let me just explain to you. The Saudi proposal specifically didn't address the issue of refugees. It specifically said the just resolution to the refugee crisis. And the PLO itself is on the record officially as saying that they would take into account Israel's demographic concerns. And Arafat said that in an op-ed piece in the “New York Times” on February 3. And that was reprinted in Arabic and in Hebrew.
And the issue becomes how do we convince our people that they're not allowed to return to their homes because they're not Jewish? Certainly, that was like Milosevic arguing after — had he won the war — that Kosovar-Albanians couldn't possibly return to Kosovo because they're not the right religion and it would destroy the Serbian character of Kosovo. And the world said no. That's discrimination. That's racism. We're not going to let you get away with that. How do we convince the Palestinians that they're somehow different?
KEYES: I find that argument fascinating and quite instructive, Michael. And I think it reveals the real agenda that's going on here, I'm sorry. And that real agenda is to have a form of words and say, “Oh, yes, we'll recognize Israel, we'll accept it,” and so to push an agenda that destroys...
BUTTU: No...
KEYES: ... let me finish, please — that destroys the Jewish character of the state.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: That hangs out there as a kind of possible duplicity. And I'm not convinced it's not there.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I have to get my question to Charles Kupchan first. That's why I brought him here. Hold on. We'll get back to you. Don't worry.
TARAZI: OK.
KEYES: Charles.
CHARLES KUPCHAN, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Yes?
KEYES: Because one of the things that occurred to me as I looked at this deal — and I really wanted to address somebody who I know is sympathetic with the process that's going on — why won't these wardens simply become shields for ongoing terrorist activity? After all, it's quite possible for somebody to run a criminal enterprise from prison.
And what guarantees do we have that these masterminds of terrorism on the Palestinian side won't just continue interacting with their brethren and directing their business hither and thither and yon? Only the American and British presence would keep the Israelis from coming at them.
KUPCHAN: Well, Alan, I think this deal makes sense for three different reasons. One is that the stalemate was not doing anybody any good. The polarized societies in Israel and the Palestinian territory were getting worse and worse. The Arabs were going off the reservation. The Saudi relationship with the U.S. was breaking down. Europe's ties with the U.S. were getting strained. So, this is a way of at least getting rid of the situation where Arafat is in Ramallah and every day getting more support as some sort of hero.
Second, I think if there's going to be a move toward some negotiated settlement, the Palestinians need to be able to say to the Israelis, “We want to provide more security for you.” That essentially means that people aren't going to be going through the revolving door once they are arrested, the terrorists. And the only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to have somebody there watching to make sure that they don't go in for five days and then come back out on the street.
KEYES: Charles, you haven't addressed my question because I'm not saying that they're going to come out of prison. I am saying that while in prison they will continue to direct and organize and mastermind the terrorist activities that they were part of. And what guarantee is there that they will not do so? We know many, many times people get into prisons...
KUPCHAN: That's the whole reason for having the monitors.
KEYES: ... but I have seen nothing in the press reports about this that would suggest, what, are they going to be restricted in their access, we'll monitor all their communications and their inward and outgoing communications? Will they not have access to the outside world? What are the terms here? I haven't heard them addressed.
KUPCHAN: Well, there are two pieces to the puzzle here. One is that Israel has done a good job of destroying the lion's share of the existing terrorist infrastructure, making it much harder for the Palestinians to organize future attacks.
And secondly, it's better to have these people in some sort of custody with British and American people watching them than to let them go out, to let them stay at will. So at least we're getting some purchase on the problem. And we're trying to move towards a plateau where we can get back to a negotiating strategy.
KEYES: I hear what you're saying. But I'm not sure, Charles, that it addresses the issue I'm raising because it is not better to create a situation where you have the delusion that you have neutralized the danger when you really haven't. I think that that wouldn't be effective at all. And that's part...
KUPCHAN: But...
KEYES: ... I want to get back to Michael and Diana quickly...
TARAZI: Yes, but, Alan, can I just comment now? You've already created the delusion. Alan, you've already created the delusion that you've addressed terrorism because it makes everyone feel good that they went in and crushed apparently the lion's share of the terrorist infrastructure. They haven't. All they've done is create more terrorists.
This is not a military problem. This is a political problem. And if you want to address the violence, you have to address the underlying political questions.
KUPCHAN: No, first you have to address the violence. And then you can address the political problem. Israel would be crazy to give back land if it means that a terrorist is going to be 50 yards from the border rather than two miles from the border...
BUTTU: That's exactly the wrong type of thinking.
KUPCHAN: ... Yes, it's a chicken and egg problem. But you've got to tell Israelis that if they move down the political force...
KEYES: Charles, Charles, Charles...
KUPCHAN: ... they will have security.
KEYES: ... give Diana a chance to have her say here.
BUTTU: That's exactly the wrong type of thinking. What we have to understand is that the formula has always been one of land for peace. Israel has to give up their land, and it will then get peace.
If Israel is worried about its security, we have to then cooperate with Israel in terms of making that its internationally recognized border is secure. But to simply go into the West Bank, and to simply continue to focus on a security first strategy, will never bring security to Israel. In fact, it will do the opposite.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Everyone, that's...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... Charles, Charles, we must let Diana have the last word tonight because we've got to go. I appreciate both of you coming on this evening. I wish you Godspeed in your travels. Charles, I thank you for coming on again.
KUPCHAN: My pleasure.
KEYES: Look forward to seeing you again later.
Joining us now, we have Moshe Arens, former Israeli foreign minister and former Israeli ambassador to the United States. I want to wish you a warm welcome to the Alan Keyes show. Thank you for joining us.
MOSHE ARENS, FORMER ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: Good evening. It's nice to be your guest here.
KEYES: The first question I have is I look at this situation, and at one level I'm asking myself why it is that the Israeli government at this stage would accept the release of Yasser Arafat when, on the very weekend this agreement was reached, there was more terrorism, there is no guarantee that it will not be repeated, no guarantee that these people being monitored won't just continue to plan their terrorist activities. Why was this a sensible decision from the point of view of the Israeli government?
ARENS: Well, Alan, for a very simple reason. The president of the United States called the prime minister and asked that this be done. And so the prime minister, I think correctly, and the government supported him on that, decided that they would do what the president of the United States asked them to do. If it had been up to Israel, we wouldn't have released them.
KEYES: But does that mean that in point of fact — I look at this situation. It seems to me that terrorism has continued, that in point of fact Yasser Arafat kind of declared this reign of terror after he didn't get what he wanted at the negotiating table. What evidence is there that if some kind of process emerges from this one won't see a repeat of the same kind of tactics? Aren't we just rewarding terrorism here?
ARENS: Well, I've heard the president, and I guess you've heard that as well from the secretary of state, express the hope that this time — this time — Arafat once free to move around would really make a very serious effort to put an end to the violence and to put an end to the terrorism.
I must tell you I'm very skeptical. It's been tried many, many times. We've had General Zinni suggest a cease-fire to Arafat. It was rejected. We've had Colin Powell over there.
He's a man of violence. He's a man of terrorism. I really don't have much hope that this time it's going to be different. But the president asked that he be given a chance. So we decided to do it.
KEYES: Now, the president has also asked, though, that Israel should stop the incursion, should stop the response and the reaction to the acts of terrorism. We have seen tanks roll again into Hebron in response to the terrorist attack over the weekend. If it's so important to respond to the president's wishes, why haven't the Israeli actions on the West Bank been stopped?
ARENS: Well, don't get me wrong. I don't think that the president of the United States would like to dictate to Israel everything that it should or should not do. He's not trying to do that. And, of course, we cannot accept dictates when it comes to the lives of our civilians.
Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces in these last few weeks are in the process of destroying the infrastructure of the terrorist network that has been built up there over the past 18 months that Arafat has promoted and that Arafat has directed. The entry into Hebron the other day was a direct result of a terrorist attack on an Israeli village where four people were killed. A 5-year-old girl was shot in the head.
We have to protect our citizens. We have to protect our women and children. The Israeli army is going to do that.
I think the president of the United States understands that as well. On a number of occasions he said, “Israel has the right to defend itself.” I think everybody would agree with that.
KEYES: Now, in terms of the deal that was made, we're going to see U.S./U.K. monitors be put into this situation. One of the questions that I must say bothers me in light of the things that happened in Beirut and other places, we've got unarmed people going into this very volatile situation dominated by terrorists who have ruthlessly gone after even the most innocent 5-year-old lives. What guarantee do we have that these monitors are going to be respected? And who's going to provide for their security? Does Israel stand guarantee for them?
ARENS: Well, I don't think we have any guarantees. And I don't think that Israel is in a position to guarantee their security if they're going to be in areas under the control of Yasser Arafat.
So, it is a somewhat tenuous situation. Hopefully, Arafat, out of respect for the United States for an arrangement that was made at the behest of the president of the United States, will ensure that these American and British monitors that will be guarding the prisoners will be safe.
KEYES: Now, do you have any concerns? Because, as I was raising with the previous panel, it's possible at least that these folks would continue their organizing activities from within prison. They're in an environment that I think we all know to be friendly, in fact, to their terrorist activities and goals. How will these unarmed monitors keep that from happening?
ARENS: Well, that's possible as well. I don't know that the people who are engaged in violence and terrorism there under the direction of Yasser Arafat need these particular six people to engineer terrorism. They've got a whole infrastructure, a whole network, which we're in the process of destroying.
Hopefully, we'll be successful. And if we are, then I think we're going to see a drastic reduction in the level of violence. I think we've already seen the first indications of that since the Israeli operation.
KEYES: One final question. We're coming up to the end of our time. But as I look at this release of Yasser Arafat — and people are saying you have to negotiate with him. The president is saying, “Will he condemn terrorism and thwart it?”
But we're also seeing an infrastructure in the hearts of Palestinians built up in their educational system, taught to their children starting at very young ages that has fed this whole syndrome of terrorism and suicide bombing and things of that kind. By legitimizing a leader like Arafat, don't we, in fact, suppress the possibility of any more truly peace-minded leaders emerging? Don't we empower these people to continue to use terror against their own folks as well as against others to maintain their particular approach? How do you get rid of that culture of violence?
ARENS: Well, I think you know our position, Alan. As long as Arafat is there, I don't think there's any reasonable chance of serious negotiations that would lead to some kind of accommodation.
That guy is the obstacle. He's a man of violence who believes in the use of violence. He has the direct responsibility for the almost 500 Israelis who have been killed by acts of terrorism during the past 18 months. Nothing can be arranged with him.
KEYES: Well, if the president...
KUPCHAN: And when he goes...
KEYES: ... if the president has, in fact, engineered this, though, so that we're kind of stuck with him for the time being, are you saying that it is then the U.S.'s responsibility to get him to behave properly?
KUPCHAN: I don't think the U.S. can do that. The president is asking him to do that. And if I understood correctly...
KEYES: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister. We're up against the time. I really appreciate you're coming on with me.
ARENS: OK.
KEYES: Thank you very much for being on the show tonight.
Next, the debate heating up in Congress over legally mandating abortion in cloning research.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Today, four U.S. senators introduced a bill that would mandate abortion in cloning research, making it a criminal offense to take cloned embryos to term. Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Edward Kennedy and Republicans Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter want to continue research in hopes that cloning technology will one day offer cures for a variety of illnesses.
Hatch tried to defend his support in light of his conservative credentials.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I come to this issue with strong pro-life — with a strong pro-life, pro-family record, but I also strongly believe that a critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Sadly, though he touted his pro-life record, Senator Hatch today abandoned his pro-life position, the heart of that position being respect for embryonic human life, respect for life from conception.
The fact that that conception takes place in the laboratory instead of in the womb makes no difference from the point of difference of the embryo. What justice is there in punishing with death because of circumstances of one's origin?
That's exactly what's going on here, and it would establish the basis for a kind of discrimination that would then extend. What happens when somebody violates this law, when a cloned embryo is brought to term? Does our denial of the humanity of that embryo and its origins mean that we would have created a class of people to be abused and discriminated against and for whom contempt would be held of their life?
I think we're opening the door to a nightmare with this kind of legislation, but we're especially — Senator Hatch is especially abandoning what has been his professed pro-life position, and it's a sad day, in my opinion, that introduces a kind of confusion into the understanding of this issue and principle that I at least intend to work hard to try to correct, you can bet.
Tonight, in starting that process, we have with us two folks, Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America — she is against the cloning of human embryos — and Randolph Wicker, spokesman for the Reproductive Cloning Network, a cloning advocacy group.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE, both of you.
Sandy, I want to start off with you tonight because one of the focuses of my attention is that Orrin Hatch who has professed to be a pro-lifer, who has a pretty good pro-life record, was now touting those credentials to sort of give himself — I don't know — standing of some kind as part of this coalition in support of legislation that would actually force abortions.
In other words, if you respect life after its conceived in the laboratory, you will be a criminal and the only way you can avoid that criminality is to abort that life. Can this be made consistent with any kind of pro-life principle?
SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: I don't think so, Alan, and I would like to say — I would like to remind Senator Hatch that, even though he has a pro-life record, ask the executives of Enron if they will be remembered for their successes or for their scandal, ask Jim Bakker if he'll be remembered for building an empire or for a night in a hotel room with a girl.
He only has to do one thing in his lifetime to ruin his reputation and his record. This is probably the most important vote he'll ever make on the life issue, and he is making a terrible mistake.
KEYES: Now there is an alternative to this legislation that's being promoted by Sam Brownback, another senator who is, in fact, promoting a pro-life position.
Why would Senator Hatch not take the alternative of basically taking a stand against opening this Pandora's box of human cloning, instead of opening it in order to kill the embryos that you engender in the process?
RIOS: I think the only explanation for that, Alan, is sometimes people take positions that they really don't deeply hold.
You could take a popular position. For the State of Utah, I'm sure it's popular to be pro-life. But if he really understood — if he really understood the issue of the sanctity of life, he would not hold this position.
So perhaps Orrin Hatch has been pro-life by convenience and because it has gotten him reelected, not because he really holds that conviction.
KEYES: Now, Randolph Wicker, it is my understanding that you support not only this kind of legislation for cloning research but cloning itself. Why do you think that this is, in fact, a safe road for us to go down?
RANDOLPH WICKER, REPRODUCTIVE CLONING NETWORK: Well, it's a very important road for us to go down because all this promising medical research is going to cure juvenile onset diabetes. Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, is all tied with the human cloning technology.
And people are trying to confuse the general public, making it sound like the issue is reproductive cloning. The issue is not reproductive cloning. The issue that's on the table is medical freedom and scientific freedom and keeping America a first-rate country in the world as we know it.
Orrin Hatch is embracing life by endorsing this very type of technology because curing the living and improving their lives is just as valid as some sort of overly done reverence for a small cluster of cells, which —
I might point out you can't have it both ways. Either these cells are viable or they're not viable. Most research shows that cloned embryos in animals are not viable. So this sanctification that people want to make the minute a cell divides once, that you have a life, that is not necessarily true because, even in nature, there's only a 25-percent chance that a blastocyst will go on to actually result in a live birth.
And when you look at the figures beginning with Dolly, one out of 271 embryos made it to live birth. The potential for a live birth in any cloned embryo is minuscule to say the least, but the potential for really saving human life is enormous because with those cells, we can cure juvenile onset diabetes, enable Christopher Reeve to walk again, return Michael J. Fox to normality, cure my mother of...
RIOS: I...
KEYES: Wait a minute. Wait. I listen to all this stuff, Mr. Wicker, and...
WICKER: Stuff?
KEYES: ... I've got to tell you...
WICKER: Stuff?
KEYES: Yeah. Just hold on. And I've got to tell you that you set up this equation with all these wonderful things we're going to get, all I'm thinking is, OK, so all we have to do is disregard the dignity and life of human beings over here and we can get all these wonderful benefits. That's the way the Nazis...
WICKER: They're not human beings.
KEYES: ... thought, and it seems to me — it seems to me...
WICKER: They're not human beings.
KEYES: It seems to me, sir, that, once we cross that line, it becomes an arbitrary determination for demagogues to get in front of people and wheedle (ph) other folks out of their humanity so that they can be oppressed, exploited, abused for medical purposes or anything else...
WICKER: They are non-existing.
KEYES: ... and that's exactly...
WICKER: They are non-human beings. They're a little clump of cells no bigger than a dot.
RIOS: Alan, I would like to also interject to Randolph...
KEYES: Sandy, go ahead.
RIOS: Randolph fully knows that his claim that this is going to cure juvenile diabetes, that it's going to reverse Christopher Reeve is bogus. There is no proof of that. If anything, we have proof that adult stem cells have been absolutely miraculous in curing illnesses, not embryonic stem cells.
WICKER: Wonderful. Wonderful. I'm all for adult stem cells also. Why do we have to...
RIOS: Oh, really?
WICKER: ... make it an either or? Let's do everything to cure the sick.
RIOS: Why don't we take something that does not destroy...
WICKER: You don't stop at...
RIOS: ... life as opposed to take something that destroys life, Randolph?
WICKER: You don't — you do not — you do not stop developing antibiotics because you have penicillin. You find another antibiotic.
RIOS: You do it if you take life to develop...
WICKER: You don't take life.
RIOS: That's where you draw the line.
WICKER: There's not taking of life here. When you create an embryo...
RIOS: Says who, Randolph?
WICKER: ... you're taking...
RIOS: Says who?
WICKER: ... a patient's DNA and putting that patient's DNA at work to cure the patient...
RIOS: From your point of view.
WICKER: ... of what ails the patient.
RIOS: From your point of view. I'm sorry.
WICKER: Well, you don't have the right...
RIOS: That's not...
WICKER: ... to inflict your point of view on people. Orrin Hatch, the — in the Senate debate, decided that life began when the embryo attached to the womb wall.
RIOS: So he has the right to inflict his opinion.
WICKER: It began when it attached to the womb wall. The Jews' theory — the soul enters the body as it travels down the birth canal. The viewpoint you hold is held by the Roman Catholic church and some fundamental Christians, and you don't have a right...
KEYES: Excuse me.
WICKER: ... to force that view on people that don't share it.
KEYES: Let me — Mr. Wicker, we're going to have to stop because we've got to take a break. We'll be right back with more of this disagreement, a little word from me, of course, and later, my outrage of the day. Some folks are trying to stop the settlement of — the lawsuit settlement in Boston in order to give the victims less money.
But, first, does this make sense?
An Arkansas man, who said he worked as the Winston man in Winston cigarette ads in the late 1970s, has sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. He says he experienced years of emotional distress from enticing people to smoke.
He took all of that money for the commercials, and representing this terrible business of smoking caused him deep emotion pain, and now he wants $65 million, in addition to all the money he made while he was a spokesman.
Fascinating, isn't it? This guy wants to be compensated for selling out to big tobacco? He says he stopped smoking, but I think he's still blowing smoke.
Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We're talking about human cloning with Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America and Randolph Wicker of the Reproductive Cloning Network.
Question for you, Mr. Wicker. Do you oppose reproductive cloning, or do you think that that, too, should be allowed to go forward?
WICKER: Well, I hold the unpopular viewpoint that that, too, should be allowed to go forward, but the — that is not the issue. Number one...
KEYES: No, no, no. Before we go on with that, though — I know you have things that you would like to say, but I just want to understand something a little better here about the relationship here because it seems to me that the argument that you're making with respect to the benefits from cloning — so if it will increase human happiness to have reproductive cloning, why should we be killing embryos if techniques would be available to bring them to term and so contribute to benefits for others, such as you have described? Doesn't that make sense?
WICKER: Well, you're not really killing the embryo. You know, when you cultivate a stem-cell culture, you simply keep it from developing further. The cells continue to live and divide, and you're essentially taking a patient's cell and putting that patient's DNA to work curing what ails the patient.
KEYES: Well, I understand that, but...
WICKER: That is not killing another life. That is an extension of the patient's life.
KEYES: I'd really like for you to answer the question, though. You — but what — is there a reason why, given the argument you're making about the benefits — is there a reason to interfere with the development of successful techniques for reproductive cloning? Yes or no.
WICKER: No.
KEYES: No.
WICKER: Because those techniques are the basis of effective stem-cell therapy.
RIOS: Alan, can I ask a question here?
KEYES: Sandy — Sandy, wait. No, I want to ask you a question, Sandy...
RIOS: All right.
KEYES: ... and then you can let — make a comment because...
RIOS: All right.
KEYES: ... it seems to me, based on what Mr. Wicker said, though — and this is part of the problem I have with Orrin Hatch's position — that Orrin has now put himself in a position where he is accepting a step that destroys in principle his ability to resist a further step, if you see what I mean, because Mr. Wicker's position is quite logical.
If you're going to do this because it benefits people and you're willing to kill embryos in order to benefit them, why not let embryos live in order to benefit them? What sense does Mr. Hatch's position make on this?
RIOS: Well, I — you know that I agree with you, Alan. It's so interesting because I was going to ask Randolph the same question you asked him, and I would take it further.
If we — if it's all right then to take the parts of this cloned person before it becomes a person to use to supposedly heal others, then why not develop the baby, let it be born, and take its organs, take its eyes — because that would be so beneficial.
Can you imagine we'd have brand-new organs that are untainted, unused. Just think how beneficial —
Randolph, why...
WICKER: Nobody...
RIOS: ... not?
WICKER: Nobody advocates anything that disgusting.
RIOS: Well, why not?
WICKER: Nobody.
RIOS: What is the difference?
WICKER: Because you're not — first of all, what you're talking about — an embryo as being a person — is not viable, in most cases. They can get viable stem-cell cultures from non-viable embryos, embryos that would never have a chance to develop further into being a human being, if you — if you want to even try that, but they can still get stem-cell cultures that can save existing people's lives and people that are — fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, people that have family roles and responsibilities.
RIOS: Randolph, you know what? That — this is the problem. You say those things, and you know that there's no proof of that.
WICKER: There is proof! They've cured diabetes in mice.
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: There is no proof. Even if this were...
WICKER: They have cured diabetes with mouse stem cells, and they've also cured heart trouble in mice using mouse stem-cell cultures.
RIOS: Not with embryonic stem...
WICKER: Yes. Embryonic stem-cell cultures...
RIOS: Not with embryonic stem cells, Randolph.
WICKER: ... have been used to cure diabetes in mice and hearts in mice.
RIOS: Embryonic stem cells? I don't think so.
WICKER: Yes. Embryonic stem cells. No.
RIOS: No. I'm sorry. You're wrong about that.
WICKER: Mouse embryonic stem cells, which...
RIOS: Mouse? Oh, that...
WICKER: ... we've been working with for 20 years. We've been working with mouse embryonic stem cells for 20 years.
RIOS: Oh, that sounds really good.
WICKER: So we have — we have a background and we have some ability to manipulate those cells...
RIOS: This is...
WICKER: ... to become...
RIOS: ... getting creepier by the moment. We've used mouse. We've used cows, actually, and mixed human — this is how bizarre this gets, Randolph. Are you not...
KEYES: Excuse me.
WICKER: No one...
KEYES: Excuse me.
WICKER: You're raising specious issues.
KEYES: I'm going to have — I have to — we've come to the end of our time. I want to thank you both for joining me tonight.
I have to draw one last conclusion, though, and this I would say to all the pro-lifers out there in my audience. I don't know about Mr. Wicker's position. I oppose it deeply.
One thing I do know, Orrin Hatch is not pro-life, and his parading a pro-life credentials today, in my opinion, is a travesty, and it's unacceptable. The position he has taken abandons the heart and soul of the pro-life movement. He has joined the other side, and it distresses me greatly.
But I think that all pro-life people in this country need to understand the truth of that because that's what happened today and it's a sad day.
Next, my outrage of the day. The lawsuit settlement in Boston. Some folks on the financial board of the Catholic church in the archdiocese in Boston want to stop it. We'll be right back to talk about that.
And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, keyes.msnbc.com. We send to your mailbox our next show topics, my weekly column, links to my favorite articles of the day.
I'll be right back with my outrage of the day. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now time for my outrage of the day.
At least three members of the archdiocese of Boston's 15-member financial advisory committee are expected to urge Cardinal Bernard Law on Thursday to abandon the multimillion-dollar settlement the church has tentatively agreed to with 86 victims of defrocked priest John Geoghan. The original settlement offer: $400,000. Their proposed settlement: $200,000.
Now I've got to tell you, with all the talk about justice for the victims, I hardly think that having an already modest settlement is going to achieve much in the way of restoring the bruised credibility of the archdiocese of Boston.
Now I think, in point of fact, it's time for us to remember the scripture of injunction to turn the other cheek. That's what we're supposed to do when we're innocent, especially true when we're guilty.
That's my sense of it.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAM” is up next. See you tomorrow.
Up front tonight, the deal involving American and British monitors in the Middle East. Today, American, British, and Palestinian officials met to finalize a plan to move six prisoners to a Palestinian prison in Jericho. Five of the men are wanted in connection with the killing of an Israeli cabinet minister. And Israel claims that the sixth engineered the January shipment of 50 tons of illegal weapons to Palestinians.
Unarmed monitors — yes, unarmed monitors — from the U.S. and the U.K. will be stationed in the Jericho prison as part of an agreement to end the Israeli siege of Arafat's Ramallah compound and allow him to come and go freely. But exactly what will the role of these monitors be?
Here's what the “Wall Street Journal” had to say in its lead editorial today: “President Bush is also taking a risk with his pledge to allow U.S. and British wardens to serve as monitors in the region. Mr. Arafat has always wanted foreign observers as a way to neutralize Israeli defense forces from striking back after terrorist attacks against Israelis. We also hope this a setup for another Beirut Marine barracks disaster.”
I think that the “Wall Street Journal” has raised the two most important questions about this deal, the first one being will the monitors be monitors or shields, shields that is for ongoing organization of Palestinian terrorist activities? After all, you and I both know that it's quite possible to continue to mastermind criminal activities from prison. It unhappily happens with organized crime figures all the time. The fact that these prisoners will be in a prison in the midst of friendly territory where a lot of people, official and unofficial, support their terrorist activities will make it even worse.
And there is also the question that since they're unarmed in the midst of a situation where unarmed civilians are constantly gunned down, what if one of these Palestinian extremist organizations or terrorist organizations takes it in their hands to kill these folks in order to embarrass the process? What then?
We've seen that kind of thinking take its toll before in the Middle East. What safeguards are there against it?
Joining us now, two Palestinian negotiators, Diana Buttu, a legal adviser to the PLO. She negotiates with Israel on the issue of refugees and compensation. Also, Michael Tarazi, legal and communications adviser to the PLO. Later on, I will be talking to former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens, so stay tuned.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE to both of you. I really appreciate you coming on tonight.
DIANA BUTTU, LEGAL ADVISER TO PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: Thank you.
MICHAEL TARAZI, PALESTINIAN NEGOTIATOR: Thank you.
KEYES: And the first question that I would like to put is the one, in fact, that immediately after this deal I put to the chief PLO spokesman in the United States. President Bush has made it clear that Yasser Arafat is free to come and go. He is under a burden and responsibility not just to condemn, but actively to thwart terrorism, to discourage it, undermine it, capture those who commit it. Are we going to see that kind of activist approach on the part of Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to end the reign of terror that we see?
TARAZI: Well, the question, if I can address it, if you don't mind, the question, first of all, you have to ask is, what exactly can Arafat do right now considering that the Israelis have destroyed the entire security infrastructure over the invasion of the last month?
The second question is, who is going to be the judge of what President Arafat actually does? If it's Sharon, we can be assured that he will never be satisfied with anything the Palestinians do. If we can get a neutral third party in who can say, yes, here's what the Palestinians can do, and here's what they've done, then we have a chance of actually seeing progress on the ground.
KEYES: But, Michael, one of the problems that I have always had is that when you're negotiating with somebody to produce a result, you assume that they have the capacity to deliver on the deal. If I'm selling a house, I presume that somebody has the capacity to pay for it. If you're telling me that Yasser Arafat cannot stop these terrorist activities, that means he doesn't have the money in the bank to pay for any deal with Israel. So, why on earth would anybody be negotiating a peace with him that he can't deliver on?
TARAZI: Well, you have to remember that we did deliver it in 1998 when Israel had the most secure year it ever had since the occupation of Palestinian territory began in 1967. The problem is that Israel didn't deliver. The Palestinians remained under occupation.
So, the problem was that it broke down. And that's what we need to do to really address the question of Israeli security. We have to understand that Israel will never be fully secure until the Palestinians are fully free. And we have to address both sides of that equation.
Palestinians are asking themselves the mirror question of what you just asked. What guarantee do we have that Israel can really deliver to us our freedom? We haven't seen it. In fact, they continue building settlements inside occupied Palestinian territory in violation of international law, in violation of U.S. policy, and using American funds. That doesn't bode well for Israel to be able to deliver its end of the deal.
KEYES: Well, let me go to Diana Buttu and ask a follow-up question because it does seem to me, I hear what Michael Tarazi said. And it suggests to me that basically we've got a situation here where the Palestinians are saying, “If we don't get what we want politically, the terror will go on. The killing will continue. And that's just the way it's going to be. You might as well accept it.”
But if Yasser Arafat does, in fact, have control over those terrorist activities, doesn't he bear a responsibility to demonstrate that in point of fact he can stop the killing, because Israel has already demonstrated with Egypt that it will keep a deal once it's made. But Arafat has shown no ability to keep a deal once made. Doesn't this pose a tremendous obstacle, Deanna?
BUTTU: Well, you're making an assumption that he's actually involved in those terrorist activities. And there's never been any evidence to demonstrate that he is involved.
But beyond that, I think the broader question is one that Michael has posed, which is that there is a link between Israel's lack of security and the Palestinian lack of freedom. What we've seen for the past year-and-a-half, and in fact for the past 35 years, is that we've always addressed Israel's security and never addressed Palestinian freedom.
If we're truly interested in creating peace, if we're truly interested in having a stable Middle East, then we're going to have to address both sides of that equation. And that means that we are going to, in fact, have to address Palestinian freedom as well as Israel's security.
KEYES: See, this is what I don't understand, Diana, because it seems to me that along the way we have seen agreements that resulted in the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. We saw agreements that gave control of 90 percent of the territory...
BUTTU: Well, that's just (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: ... let me finish, please — to Palestinian Authority. We saw efforts to cooperate that recognized the role of Palestinian security forces. We even saw the United States come out and talk explicitly about what it was necessary to have a Palestinian state. I don't think that this has been as one-sided as you're portraying it.
BUTTU: Well, actually, if I can just get to your underlying assumption, in fact it is something that hasn't been working because the Palestinians don't, in fact, control 90 percent of the West Bank. We only control roughly 18 percent of the West Bank.
And even that 18 percent of the West Bank is not one contiguous area. It's 13 separate areas that are completely divided and controlled and surrounded by Israel. So, we only have security over that 13 percent. Israel has security — Israel is required to maintain security for the remaining percentage.
KEYES: Well, Diana, we're talking — we're talking a little bit at cross purposes here, aren't we? What...
BUTTU: Well, no, let me just get to how...
KEYES: ... on the map, wait a minute, on the map when you say that, what exactly are you referring to, 18 percent? Israel controls more. What are you referring to?
BUTTU: ... the map that you have up is misleading, sir. What the Palestinians are in control of is Area A, and Area A is only 18 percent of the West Bank. The map that you are now showing is Areas A and B. And Areas A and B is a much more substantial area.
KEYES: Are you telling me that Palestinians won't be happy until they control areas A and B?
BUTTU: Well, what we're supposed to control is Areas A, B, and C, which is the entire West Bank and the entire Gaza Strip. This is land that was occupied by Israel in 1967, land that the entire international community has said that Israel must return back to the Palestinians. This is simply what we've been asking for since 1967.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, if I can address just a comment to both of you, I often hear folks talk as if Resolution 242, for instance, required Israel's withdrawal from all the territories that it had captured in 1967. But that's not how the resolution is worded, as a matter of fact. I think we actually have it on file somewhere, if folks could find it and put it up there, in which the exact wording of the resolution makes clear that there is a reciprocity required here, and that in point of fact Israel is called upon to withdraw from territories in exchange for existence of secure, recognized borders.
Do we have that, you all? Can we throw it up there? We don't have it? OK.
But...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... recognized borders. That does not sound like the Israelis withdraw first, and then the killing stops.
TARAZI: Alan, let me address that point. It's not Security Council Resolution 242 that really governs here. There is also another principal international law that says you cannot acquire territory through force. That's why Iraq, for example, was not allowed to hold onto parts of Kuwait the way Israel is trying to hold onto parts of the Palestinian territories occupied in '67.
KEYES: Michael, Michael, I am sorry...
BUTTU: Alan...
KEYES: ... wait a minute here, wait a minute here. I am sorry. When you are aggressed upon by somebody and in consequence of your response to that war of aggression you end up sitting on their territory, you are not required simply to give it up apart from actual negotiated peace. When we were in Germany, when we were in Japan at the end of World War II, there was no requirement that we give up that occupation until an actual peace agreement determined the terms on which we would withdraw. And to say otherwise departs from international law.
BUTTU: Did we ask Kuwait to negotiate? Did we ask Kuwait to negotiate with Iraq? When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we certainly did not. In fact, it was the opposite. We had United Nations resolutions. We fought an entire war to ensure that every inch of Kuwaiti territory was given back to Kuwait. We liberated Kuwait.
KEYES: Diana, I am sorry. You keep missing the point. In 1967, the Arab state banded together in a war of aggression. They got soundly defeated in that war of aggression. They were Saddam Hussein. And Israel was in the position of Kuwait being aggressed against. The fact that the king of Jordan, even after the Israelis asked him not to, got involved in that aggression and then lost the West Bank, it was his lookout for getting involved in that war of aggression. Don't try to get us to forget that because I don't forget that history.
TARAZI: Well, Alan, unfortunately you never really knew that because that's not the case. If you take a look into Israeli historians' accounts, take a look at Avi Schleiman (ph), an Israeli historian, that talks very clearly about what the conditions were with respect to why Israel attacked Jordan and Syria in particular that did not pose a threat to Israel at the time.
But that's beside the point, Alan. The real point is that — so Israel takes control of the territory. Does it mean it has the right then to build settlements on that territory, to deny freedom to the Palestinians who live on that territory, to discriminate against them, to take water resources, to torture them? That's not a defensive proposition — that then because offensive. That then means that they want to hold on to this territory...
KEYES: Michael...
(CROSSTALK)
TARAZI: ... no, Alan, you've got to let me finish here...
KEYES: ... Michael, you are making...
TARAZI: ... Alan, you need to know one thing, Alan. The people in the West Bank, you have three million Palestinians — Christians and Muslims — who have no political or civil rights inside Israel for one reason. And that's because they're the wrong religion.
BUTTU: Absolutely.
TARAZI: That does not get justified...
KEYES: Michael, Michael...
TARAZI: ... by the '67 war.
KEYES: ... first of all, I do not believe that those West Bank territories ought to remain under Israel's permanent control or sovereignty. I think, in fact, that would be suicide for Israel, among other things.
But I also don't believe that the Israelis should relinquish that territory until an — unless they're sitting down with someone who can actually give them the promised peace, rather than a continuation of war.
BUTTU: Well, that's just it, Alan. We've recently seen with the Saudi initiative that was passed by 22 — the entire Arab League, 22 neighbors — that they're actually saying this very issue, which is withdraw to the '67 borders, withdraw from all of the territory that you occupied, and you will have peace. And you will have not only peace, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
KEYES: Diana, Diana, hold on a second. We're right up against a break. We're going to come right back, though, so you'll get a chance to continue.
Everybody stay with us. We're going to continue with our guests after this. And we're going to talk, as I said, with the former Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Arens. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: We must make sure that human beings are not cloned. We also must not stand in the way, secondly, of scientific advances that hold the promise of treatment and cures for literally millions of Americans and others worldwide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: That was Senator Orrin Hatch as he today joined senators from both sides of the aisle that would mandate the destruction of human embryos in cloning research. That's right. We would have to abort these embryos. Let's see, you create a life for research, then you destroy it because the law forces you to abort it. Does that make sense? We're going to debate that in our next half-hour.
A reminder that the chat room is rocking tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.
But first, we're going to continue our discussion about the Mid-East deal and the overall situation in the Mid-East in the wake of Yasser Arafat's release. Still with us, Diana Buttu and Michael Tarazi, both legal advisers and negotiators for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. And joining us now also, Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor at Georgetown University.
Now, Charles, I have a question that I'm dying to ask you. But I must, before we get to it, get back to Michael and Diana with one question about the Saudi proposal that just continually is on my mind because, like others, I heard it. And it sounded on the surface pretty good. But then I heard all the Arab leaders talking about the right of return and implying that that included the right of return to Israel proper. Then I heard other Palestinians spokesman talking about the South African parallels between Israel and South Africa.
And then I realized that that plan was actually a trap. And if the right of return is understood in that way, the aim is simply to set Israel up with insecure borders so that after a Palestinian majority is established within Israel proper, one can agitate for the destruction for the Jewish character of the state of Israel. Why should the Israelis accept such a future? Michael, Diana?
TARAZI: Let me just explain to you. The Saudi proposal specifically didn't address the issue of refugees. It specifically said the just resolution to the refugee crisis. And the PLO itself is on the record officially as saying that they would take into account Israel's demographic concerns. And Arafat said that in an op-ed piece in the “New York Times” on February 3. And that was reprinted in Arabic and in Hebrew.
And the issue becomes how do we convince our people that they're not allowed to return to their homes because they're not Jewish? Certainly, that was like Milosevic arguing after — had he won the war — that Kosovar-Albanians couldn't possibly return to Kosovo because they're not the right religion and it would destroy the Serbian character of Kosovo. And the world said no. That's discrimination. That's racism. We're not going to let you get away with that. How do we convince the Palestinians that they're somehow different?
KEYES: I find that argument fascinating and quite instructive, Michael. And I think it reveals the real agenda that's going on here, I'm sorry. And that real agenda is to have a form of words and say, “Oh, yes, we'll recognize Israel, we'll accept it,” and so to push an agenda that destroys...
BUTTU: No...
KEYES: ... let me finish, please — that destroys the Jewish character of the state.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: That hangs out there as a kind of possible duplicity. And I'm not convinced it's not there.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: I have to get my question to Charles Kupchan first. That's why I brought him here. Hold on. We'll get back to you. Don't worry.
TARAZI: OK.
KEYES: Charles.
CHARLES KUPCHAN, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Yes?
KEYES: Because one of the things that occurred to me as I looked at this deal — and I really wanted to address somebody who I know is sympathetic with the process that's going on — why won't these wardens simply become shields for ongoing terrorist activity? After all, it's quite possible for somebody to run a criminal enterprise from prison.
And what guarantees do we have that these masterminds of terrorism on the Palestinian side won't just continue interacting with their brethren and directing their business hither and thither and yon? Only the American and British presence would keep the Israelis from coming at them.
KUPCHAN: Well, Alan, I think this deal makes sense for three different reasons. One is that the stalemate was not doing anybody any good. The polarized societies in Israel and the Palestinian territory were getting worse and worse. The Arabs were going off the reservation. The Saudi relationship with the U.S. was breaking down. Europe's ties with the U.S. were getting strained. So, this is a way of at least getting rid of the situation where Arafat is in Ramallah and every day getting more support as some sort of hero.
Second, I think if there's going to be a move toward some negotiated settlement, the Palestinians need to be able to say to the Israelis, “We want to provide more security for you.” That essentially means that people aren't going to be going through the revolving door once they are arrested, the terrorists. And the only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to have somebody there watching to make sure that they don't go in for five days and then come back out on the street.
KEYES: Charles, you haven't addressed my question because I'm not saying that they're going to come out of prison. I am saying that while in prison they will continue to direct and organize and mastermind the terrorist activities that they were part of. And what guarantee is there that they will not do so? We know many, many times people get into prisons...
KUPCHAN: That's the whole reason for having the monitors.
KEYES: ... but I have seen nothing in the press reports about this that would suggest, what, are they going to be restricted in their access, we'll monitor all their communications and their inward and outgoing communications? Will they not have access to the outside world? What are the terms here? I haven't heard them addressed.
KUPCHAN: Well, there are two pieces to the puzzle here. One is that Israel has done a good job of destroying the lion's share of the existing terrorist infrastructure, making it much harder for the Palestinians to organize future attacks.
And secondly, it's better to have these people in some sort of custody with British and American people watching them than to let them go out, to let them stay at will. So at least we're getting some purchase on the problem. And we're trying to move towards a plateau where we can get back to a negotiating strategy.
KEYES: I hear what you're saying. But I'm not sure, Charles, that it addresses the issue I'm raising because it is not better to create a situation where you have the delusion that you have neutralized the danger when you really haven't. I think that that wouldn't be effective at all. And that's part...
KUPCHAN: But...
KEYES: ... I want to get back to Michael and Diana quickly...
TARAZI: Yes, but, Alan, can I just comment now? You've already created the delusion. Alan, you've already created the delusion that you've addressed terrorism because it makes everyone feel good that they went in and crushed apparently the lion's share of the terrorist infrastructure. They haven't. All they've done is create more terrorists.
This is not a military problem. This is a political problem. And if you want to address the violence, you have to address the underlying political questions.
KUPCHAN: No, first you have to address the violence. And then you can address the political problem. Israel would be crazy to give back land if it means that a terrorist is going to be 50 yards from the border rather than two miles from the border...
BUTTU: That's exactly the wrong type of thinking.
KUPCHAN: ... Yes, it's a chicken and egg problem. But you've got to tell Israelis that if they move down the political force...
KEYES: Charles, Charles, Charles...
KUPCHAN: ... they will have security.
KEYES: ... give Diana a chance to have her say here.
BUTTU: That's exactly the wrong type of thinking. What we have to understand is that the formula has always been one of land for peace. Israel has to give up their land, and it will then get peace.
If Israel is worried about its security, we have to then cooperate with Israel in terms of making that its internationally recognized border is secure. But to simply go into the West Bank, and to simply continue to focus on a security first strategy, will never bring security to Israel. In fact, it will do the opposite.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Everyone, that's...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: ... Charles, Charles, we must let Diana have the last word tonight because we've got to go. I appreciate both of you coming on this evening. I wish you Godspeed in your travels. Charles, I thank you for coming on again.
KUPCHAN: My pleasure.
KEYES: Look forward to seeing you again later.
Joining us now, we have Moshe Arens, former Israeli foreign minister and former Israeli ambassador to the United States. I want to wish you a warm welcome to the Alan Keyes show. Thank you for joining us.
MOSHE ARENS, FORMER ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER: Good evening. It's nice to be your guest here.
KEYES: The first question I have is I look at this situation, and at one level I'm asking myself why it is that the Israeli government at this stage would accept the release of Yasser Arafat when, on the very weekend this agreement was reached, there was more terrorism, there is no guarantee that it will not be repeated, no guarantee that these people being monitored won't just continue to plan their terrorist activities. Why was this a sensible decision from the point of view of the Israeli government?
ARENS: Well, Alan, for a very simple reason. The president of the United States called the prime minister and asked that this be done. And so the prime minister, I think correctly, and the government supported him on that, decided that they would do what the president of the United States asked them to do. If it had been up to Israel, we wouldn't have released them.
KEYES: But does that mean that in point of fact — I look at this situation. It seems to me that terrorism has continued, that in point of fact Yasser Arafat kind of declared this reign of terror after he didn't get what he wanted at the negotiating table. What evidence is there that if some kind of process emerges from this one won't see a repeat of the same kind of tactics? Aren't we just rewarding terrorism here?
ARENS: Well, I've heard the president, and I guess you've heard that as well from the secretary of state, express the hope that this time — this time — Arafat once free to move around would really make a very serious effort to put an end to the violence and to put an end to the terrorism.
I must tell you I'm very skeptical. It's been tried many, many times. We've had General Zinni suggest a cease-fire to Arafat. It was rejected. We've had Colin Powell over there.
He's a man of violence. He's a man of terrorism. I really don't have much hope that this time it's going to be different. But the president asked that he be given a chance. So we decided to do it.
KEYES: Now, the president has also asked, though, that Israel should stop the incursion, should stop the response and the reaction to the acts of terrorism. We have seen tanks roll again into Hebron in response to the terrorist attack over the weekend. If it's so important to respond to the president's wishes, why haven't the Israeli actions on the West Bank been stopped?
ARENS: Well, don't get me wrong. I don't think that the president of the United States would like to dictate to Israel everything that it should or should not do. He's not trying to do that. And, of course, we cannot accept dictates when it comes to the lives of our civilians.
Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces in these last few weeks are in the process of destroying the infrastructure of the terrorist network that has been built up there over the past 18 months that Arafat has promoted and that Arafat has directed. The entry into Hebron the other day was a direct result of a terrorist attack on an Israeli village where four people were killed. A 5-year-old girl was shot in the head.
We have to protect our citizens. We have to protect our women and children. The Israeli army is going to do that.
I think the president of the United States understands that as well. On a number of occasions he said, “Israel has the right to defend itself.” I think everybody would agree with that.
KEYES: Now, in terms of the deal that was made, we're going to see U.S./U.K. monitors be put into this situation. One of the questions that I must say bothers me in light of the things that happened in Beirut and other places, we've got unarmed people going into this very volatile situation dominated by terrorists who have ruthlessly gone after even the most innocent 5-year-old lives. What guarantee do we have that these monitors are going to be respected? And who's going to provide for their security? Does Israel stand guarantee for them?
ARENS: Well, I don't think we have any guarantees. And I don't think that Israel is in a position to guarantee their security if they're going to be in areas under the control of Yasser Arafat.
So, it is a somewhat tenuous situation. Hopefully, Arafat, out of respect for the United States for an arrangement that was made at the behest of the president of the United States, will ensure that these American and British monitors that will be guarding the prisoners will be safe.
KEYES: Now, do you have any concerns? Because, as I was raising with the previous panel, it's possible at least that these folks would continue their organizing activities from within prison. They're in an environment that I think we all know to be friendly, in fact, to their terrorist activities and goals. How will these unarmed monitors keep that from happening?
ARENS: Well, that's possible as well. I don't know that the people who are engaged in violence and terrorism there under the direction of Yasser Arafat need these particular six people to engineer terrorism. They've got a whole infrastructure, a whole network, which we're in the process of destroying.
Hopefully, we'll be successful. And if we are, then I think we're going to see a drastic reduction in the level of violence. I think we've already seen the first indications of that since the Israeli operation.
KEYES: One final question. We're coming up to the end of our time. But as I look at this release of Yasser Arafat — and people are saying you have to negotiate with him. The president is saying, “Will he condemn terrorism and thwart it?”
But we're also seeing an infrastructure in the hearts of Palestinians built up in their educational system, taught to their children starting at very young ages that has fed this whole syndrome of terrorism and suicide bombing and things of that kind. By legitimizing a leader like Arafat, don't we, in fact, suppress the possibility of any more truly peace-minded leaders emerging? Don't we empower these people to continue to use terror against their own folks as well as against others to maintain their particular approach? How do you get rid of that culture of violence?
ARENS: Well, I think you know our position, Alan. As long as Arafat is there, I don't think there's any reasonable chance of serious negotiations that would lead to some kind of accommodation.
That guy is the obstacle. He's a man of violence who believes in the use of violence. He has the direct responsibility for the almost 500 Israelis who have been killed by acts of terrorism during the past 18 months. Nothing can be arranged with him.
KEYES: Well, if the president...
KUPCHAN: And when he goes...
KEYES: ... if the president has, in fact, engineered this, though, so that we're kind of stuck with him for the time being, are you saying that it is then the U.S.'s responsibility to get him to behave properly?
KUPCHAN: I don't think the U.S. can do that. The president is asking him to do that. And if I understood correctly...
KEYES: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister. We're up against the time. I really appreciate you're coming on with me.
ARENS: OK.
KEYES: Thank you very much for being on the show tonight.
Next, the debate heating up in Congress over legally mandating abortion in cloning research.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Today, four U.S. senators introduced a bill that would mandate abortion in cloning research, making it a criminal offense to take cloned embryos to term. Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Edward Kennedy and Republicans Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter want to continue research in hopes that cloning technology will one day offer cures for a variety of illnesses.
Hatch tried to defend his support in light of his conservative credentials.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R), UTAH: I come to this issue with strong pro-life — with a strong pro-life, pro-family record, but I also strongly believe that a critical part of being pro-life is to support measures that help the living.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Sadly, though he touted his pro-life record, Senator Hatch today abandoned his pro-life position, the heart of that position being respect for embryonic human life, respect for life from conception.
The fact that that conception takes place in the laboratory instead of in the womb makes no difference from the point of difference of the embryo. What justice is there in punishing with death because of circumstances of one's origin?
That's exactly what's going on here, and it would establish the basis for a kind of discrimination that would then extend. What happens when somebody violates this law, when a cloned embryo is brought to term? Does our denial of the humanity of that embryo and its origins mean that we would have created a class of people to be abused and discriminated against and for whom contempt would be held of their life?
I think we're opening the door to a nightmare with this kind of legislation, but we're especially — Senator Hatch is especially abandoning what has been his professed pro-life position, and it's a sad day, in my opinion, that introduces a kind of confusion into the understanding of this issue and principle that I at least intend to work hard to try to correct, you can bet.
Tonight, in starting that process, we have with us two folks, Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America — she is against the cloning of human embryos — and Randolph Wicker, spokesman for the Reproductive Cloning Network, a cloning advocacy group.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE, both of you.
Sandy, I want to start off with you tonight because one of the focuses of my attention is that Orrin Hatch who has professed to be a pro-lifer, who has a pretty good pro-life record, was now touting those credentials to sort of give himself — I don't know — standing of some kind as part of this coalition in support of legislation that would actually force abortions.
In other words, if you respect life after its conceived in the laboratory, you will be a criminal and the only way you can avoid that criminality is to abort that life. Can this be made consistent with any kind of pro-life principle?
SANDY RIOS, CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA: I don't think so, Alan, and I would like to say — I would like to remind Senator Hatch that, even though he has a pro-life record, ask the executives of Enron if they will be remembered for their successes or for their scandal, ask Jim Bakker if he'll be remembered for building an empire or for a night in a hotel room with a girl.
He only has to do one thing in his lifetime to ruin his reputation and his record. This is probably the most important vote he'll ever make on the life issue, and he is making a terrible mistake.
KEYES: Now there is an alternative to this legislation that's being promoted by Sam Brownback, another senator who is, in fact, promoting a pro-life position.
Why would Senator Hatch not take the alternative of basically taking a stand against opening this Pandora's box of human cloning, instead of opening it in order to kill the embryos that you engender in the process?
RIOS: I think the only explanation for that, Alan, is sometimes people take positions that they really don't deeply hold.
You could take a popular position. For the State of Utah, I'm sure it's popular to be pro-life. But if he really understood — if he really understood the issue of the sanctity of life, he would not hold this position.
So perhaps Orrin Hatch has been pro-life by convenience and because it has gotten him reelected, not because he really holds that conviction.
KEYES: Now, Randolph Wicker, it is my understanding that you support not only this kind of legislation for cloning research but cloning itself. Why do you think that this is, in fact, a safe road for us to go down?
RANDOLPH WICKER, REPRODUCTIVE CLONING NETWORK: Well, it's a very important road for us to go down because all this promising medical research is going to cure juvenile onset diabetes. Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, is all tied with the human cloning technology.
And people are trying to confuse the general public, making it sound like the issue is reproductive cloning. The issue is not reproductive cloning. The issue that's on the table is medical freedom and scientific freedom and keeping America a first-rate country in the world as we know it.
Orrin Hatch is embracing life by endorsing this very type of technology because curing the living and improving their lives is just as valid as some sort of overly done reverence for a small cluster of cells, which —
I might point out you can't have it both ways. Either these cells are viable or they're not viable. Most research shows that cloned embryos in animals are not viable. So this sanctification that people want to make the minute a cell divides once, that you have a life, that is not necessarily true because, even in nature, there's only a 25-percent chance that a blastocyst will go on to actually result in a live birth.
And when you look at the figures beginning with Dolly, one out of 271 embryos made it to live birth. The potential for a live birth in any cloned embryo is minuscule to say the least, but the potential for really saving human life is enormous because with those cells, we can cure juvenile onset diabetes, enable Christopher Reeve to walk again, return Michael J. Fox to normality, cure my mother of...
RIOS: I...
KEYES: Wait a minute. Wait. I listen to all this stuff, Mr. Wicker, and...
WICKER: Stuff?
KEYES: ... I've got to tell you...
WICKER: Stuff?
KEYES: Yeah. Just hold on. And I've got to tell you that you set up this equation with all these wonderful things we're going to get, all I'm thinking is, OK, so all we have to do is disregard the dignity and life of human beings over here and we can get all these wonderful benefits. That's the way the Nazis...
WICKER: They're not human beings.
KEYES: ... thought, and it seems to me — it seems to me...
WICKER: They're not human beings.
KEYES: It seems to me, sir, that, once we cross that line, it becomes an arbitrary determination for demagogues to get in front of people and wheedle (ph) other folks out of their humanity so that they can be oppressed, exploited, abused for medical purposes or anything else...
WICKER: They are non-existing.
KEYES: ... and that's exactly...
WICKER: They are non-human beings. They're a little clump of cells no bigger than a dot.
RIOS: Alan, I would like to also interject to Randolph...
KEYES: Sandy, go ahead.
RIOS: Randolph fully knows that his claim that this is going to cure juvenile diabetes, that it's going to reverse Christopher Reeve is bogus. There is no proof of that. If anything, we have proof that adult stem cells have been absolutely miraculous in curing illnesses, not embryonic stem cells.
WICKER: Wonderful. Wonderful. I'm all for adult stem cells also. Why do we have to...
RIOS: Oh, really?
WICKER: ... make it an either or? Let's do everything to cure the sick.
RIOS: Why don't we take something that does not destroy...
WICKER: You don't stop at...
RIOS: ... life as opposed to take something that destroys life, Randolph?
WICKER: You don't — you do not — you do not stop developing antibiotics because you have penicillin. You find another antibiotic.
RIOS: You do it if you take life to develop...
WICKER: You don't take life.
RIOS: That's where you draw the line.
WICKER: There's not taking of life here. When you create an embryo...
RIOS: Says who, Randolph?
WICKER: ... you're taking...
RIOS: Says who?
WICKER: ... a patient's DNA and putting that patient's DNA at work to cure the patient...
RIOS: From your point of view.
WICKER: ... of what ails the patient.
RIOS: From your point of view. I'm sorry.
WICKER: Well, you don't have the right...
RIOS: That's not...
WICKER: ... to inflict your point of view on people. Orrin Hatch, the — in the Senate debate, decided that life began when the embryo attached to the womb wall.
RIOS: So he has the right to inflict his opinion.
WICKER: It began when it attached to the womb wall. The Jews' theory — the soul enters the body as it travels down the birth canal. The viewpoint you hold is held by the Roman Catholic church and some fundamental Christians, and you don't have a right...
KEYES: Excuse me.
WICKER: ... to force that view on people that don't share it.
KEYES: Let me — Mr. Wicker, we're going to have to stop because we've got to take a break. We'll be right back with more of this disagreement, a little word from me, of course, and later, my outrage of the day. Some folks are trying to stop the settlement of — the lawsuit settlement in Boston in order to give the victims less money.
But, first, does this make sense?
An Arkansas man, who said he worked as the Winston man in Winston cigarette ads in the late 1970s, has sued R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. He says he experienced years of emotional distress from enticing people to smoke.
He took all of that money for the commercials, and representing this terrible business of smoking caused him deep emotion pain, and now he wants $65 million, in addition to all the money he made while he was a spokesman.
Fascinating, isn't it? This guy wants to be compensated for selling out to big tobacco? He says he stopped smoking, but I think he's still blowing smoke.
Does this make sense?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE.
We're talking about human cloning with Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America and Randolph Wicker of the Reproductive Cloning Network.
Question for you, Mr. Wicker. Do you oppose reproductive cloning, or do you think that that, too, should be allowed to go forward?
WICKER: Well, I hold the unpopular viewpoint that that, too, should be allowed to go forward, but the — that is not the issue. Number one...
KEYES: No, no, no. Before we go on with that, though — I know you have things that you would like to say, but I just want to understand something a little better here about the relationship here because it seems to me that the argument that you're making with respect to the benefits from cloning — so if it will increase human happiness to have reproductive cloning, why should we be killing embryos if techniques would be available to bring them to term and so contribute to benefits for others, such as you have described? Doesn't that make sense?
WICKER: Well, you're not really killing the embryo. You know, when you cultivate a stem-cell culture, you simply keep it from developing further. The cells continue to live and divide, and you're essentially taking a patient's cell and putting that patient's DNA to work curing what ails the patient.
KEYES: Well, I understand that, but...
WICKER: That is not killing another life. That is an extension of the patient's life.
KEYES: I'd really like for you to answer the question, though. You — but what — is there a reason why, given the argument you're making about the benefits — is there a reason to interfere with the development of successful techniques for reproductive cloning? Yes or no.
WICKER: No.
KEYES: No.
WICKER: Because those techniques are the basis of effective stem-cell therapy.
RIOS: Alan, can I ask a question here?
KEYES: Sandy — Sandy, wait. No, I want to ask you a question, Sandy...
RIOS: All right.
KEYES: ... and then you can let — make a comment because...
RIOS: All right.
KEYES: ... it seems to me, based on what Mr. Wicker said, though — and this is part of the problem I have with Orrin Hatch's position — that Orrin has now put himself in a position where he is accepting a step that destroys in principle his ability to resist a further step, if you see what I mean, because Mr. Wicker's position is quite logical.
If you're going to do this because it benefits people and you're willing to kill embryos in order to benefit them, why not let embryos live in order to benefit them? What sense does Mr. Hatch's position make on this?
RIOS: Well, I — you know that I agree with you, Alan. It's so interesting because I was going to ask Randolph the same question you asked him, and I would take it further.
If we — if it's all right then to take the parts of this cloned person before it becomes a person to use to supposedly heal others, then why not develop the baby, let it be born, and take its organs, take its eyes — because that would be so beneficial.
Can you imagine we'd have brand-new organs that are untainted, unused. Just think how beneficial —
Randolph, why...
WICKER: Nobody...
RIOS: ... not?
WICKER: Nobody advocates anything that disgusting.
RIOS: Well, why not?
WICKER: Nobody.
RIOS: What is the difference?
WICKER: Because you're not — first of all, what you're talking about — an embryo as being a person — is not viable, in most cases. They can get viable stem-cell cultures from non-viable embryos, embryos that would never have a chance to develop further into being a human being, if you — if you want to even try that, but they can still get stem-cell cultures that can save existing people's lives and people that are — fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, people that have family roles and responsibilities.
RIOS: Randolph, you know what? That — this is the problem. You say those things, and you know that there's no proof of that.
WICKER: There is proof! They've cured diabetes in mice.
(CROSSTALK)
RIOS: There is no proof. Even if this were...
WICKER: They have cured diabetes with mouse stem cells, and they've also cured heart trouble in mice using mouse stem-cell cultures.
RIOS: Not with embryonic stem...
WICKER: Yes. Embryonic stem-cell cultures...
RIOS: Not with embryonic stem cells, Randolph.
WICKER: ... have been used to cure diabetes in mice and hearts in mice.
RIOS: Embryonic stem cells? I don't think so.
WICKER: Yes. Embryonic stem cells. No.
RIOS: No. I'm sorry. You're wrong about that.
WICKER: Mouse embryonic stem cells, which...
RIOS: Mouse? Oh, that...
WICKER: ... we've been working with for 20 years. We've been working with mouse embryonic stem cells for 20 years.
RIOS: Oh, that sounds really good.
WICKER: So we have — we have a background and we have some ability to manipulate those cells...
RIOS: This is...
WICKER: ... to become...
RIOS: ... getting creepier by the moment. We've used mouse. We've used cows, actually, and mixed human — this is how bizarre this gets, Randolph. Are you not...
KEYES: Excuse me.
WICKER: No one...
KEYES: Excuse me.
WICKER: You're raising specious issues.
KEYES: I'm going to have — I have to — we've come to the end of our time. I want to thank you both for joining me tonight.
I have to draw one last conclusion, though, and this I would say to all the pro-lifers out there in my audience. I don't know about Mr. Wicker's position. I oppose it deeply.
One thing I do know, Orrin Hatch is not pro-life, and his parading a pro-life credentials today, in my opinion, is a travesty, and it's unacceptable. The position he has taken abandons the heart and soul of the pro-life movement. He has joined the other side, and it distresses me greatly.
But I think that all pro-life people in this country need to understand the truth of that because that's what happened today and it's a sad day.
Next, my outrage of the day. The lawsuit settlement in Boston. Some folks on the financial board of the Catholic church in the archdiocese in Boston want to stop it. We'll be right back to talk about that.
And if you want to make even more sense, sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, keyes.msnbc.com. We send to your mailbox our next show topics, my weekly column, links to my favorite articles of the day.
I'll be right back with my outrage of the day. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Now time for my outrage of the day.
At least three members of the archdiocese of Boston's 15-member financial advisory committee are expected to urge Cardinal Bernard Law on Thursday to abandon the multimillion-dollar settlement the church has tentatively agreed to with 86 victims of defrocked priest John Geoghan. The original settlement offer: $400,000. Their proposed settlement: $200,000.
Now I've got to tell you, with all the talk about justice for the victims, I hardly think that having an already modest settlement is going to achieve much in the way of restoring the bruised credibility of the archdiocese of Boston.
Now I think, in point of fact, it's time for us to remember the scripture of injunction to turn the other cheek. That's what we're supposed to do when we're innocent, especially true when we're guilty.
That's my sense of it.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAM” is up next. See you tomorrow.