ED GORDON, host:
This is NEWS AND NOTES. I'm Ed Gordon. On today's Roundtable, a judge rules warrantless surveillance is unconstitutional, and Jesse to the rescue.
Joe Davidson, an editor at the Washington Post is with me at member station WFYI in Indianapolis, Indiana. From member station WFDD in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, we're joined by Nat Irvin, professor of future studies at Wake Forest University. And from NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., Republican strategist Tara Setmayer.
All right, folks, welcome. Let's get right into this question of whether or not the White House finds itself again in legal hot water. According to U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor - ruling came down yesterday, Joe Davidson -it does seem as those White House is in some legal hot water, though the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, came out very quickly yesterday to say that he doesn't believe that to be the case.
Mr. JOE DAVIDSON (Editor, The Washington Post): Well, I guess I think that the water is warm. I'm not sure it's hot yet because this decision has been stayed, the implementation of it has been stayed pending an appeal. And I think this is the kind of thing that can go all of the way to the Supreme Court. It most likely will go to the Supreme Court. And given the makeup of the Court, I think that those who favor the ACLU's position would be mistaken if they celebrate too early.
There is, however, the Democrats and people who favor this decision see it as, as one report called it, a sequel to the June decision involving Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. And in that case, the Court - the high court struck down the administration's plans to try detainees held in Guantanamo Bay for war crimes.
So there is some hope on the side of those - some real hope I think on the side of those who favor the ACLU's position. But I think they should not celebrate too much too quickly.
GORDON: Yeah. No premature celebration here. Tara, one of the things that people are talking about is whether or not that this is, as Republicans - some Republicans have suggested, politically motivated by virtue of the language that was released from this judge, Anna Diggs Taylor from Detroit.
She suggested that there are no hereditary kings in America, and, no, power is not created by the Constitution, she writes.
Ms. TARA SETMAYER (Republican Strategist): Unfortunately, this judge does have the shadow or cloud of being politically motivated with this ruling here. Because from a legal standpoint, even liberals, the Daily Kos, which is a very left-leaning blog site, had criticized the legal foundation of this ruling. They called it poorly reasoned and totally unhelpful.
And many legal experts have concluded that this is a conclusionary(ph) ruling, which means that, yes, it may be convincing but there's not enough supporting evidence to really support her arguments here. She says that the president's -that they obviously violate the Fourth Amendment, that it's an indisputable violation of the First Amendment. But yet she provides no legal reasoning for why she comes to that conclusion.
And the fact that she's a Carter administration appointee is - doesn't favor well for her position, and unfortunately it opens her up to an attack as far as whether this is legally motivated or not. She also pulled a very strange move during the Michigan affirmative action case. When a more conservative judge was assigned that Michigan affirmative action case, she petitioned to have him removed. That's extremely - that's highly irregular.
So given the poorly legal reasoning that she gave for her decision, I think that that will go to the Sixth Circuit, which it will, and it will be overturned.
GORDON: All right. We'll let the scholars argue whether or not that was poorly legal reasoning. But one of the interesting things, Nat, is the idea that you always are going to be appointed by some president, whether it's Republican or Democrat. You can make that argument all the time.
But one of the things that Joe and I were talking about off-mic before we got started is the idea that typically even if you see the political wrangling, you don't typically see folks take these judges to task politically.
Mr. DAVIDSON: Publicly, publicly.
Professor NAT IRVIN (Future Studies, Wake Forest University): Well, yeah. I think you just pointed right at it, that this is a political season. The ACLU chose this judge because they thought they had a - I mean you shop for judges all the time. I mean when - you try to find somebody whose court you think may be favorable toward your position.
So it obviously was going to be viewed as a political judgment in the same way that the 2000 election was seen as a political decision by the court. I think that what this gets to, though, and it's healthy for our debate, is that it does get to the notion of how we struggle as Americans with our balance between security and freedom.
And ultimately, I think it does come down to the Supreme Court; it will go to the Sixth District court next, but ultimately to the Supreme Court. But to us as Americans, we're going to have to find a balance between our security and our freedom. And I think even though the polls show that 60 percent of Americans tend to lean toward the NSA's position right now, we'll probably come back a little bit further toward the middle.
But this is a struggle we're going to have to deal with as we come to grips with this new age of terrorism that we live in.
GORDON: All right, well let's - go ahead, Joe.
Mr. DAVIDSON: I was going to say that that balance might be having these kinds of cases go before the FISA court, which is legislation that Arlen Specter - a Republican moderate, chairs the Judiciary Committee and the Senate - has proposed and the White House has endorsed. And Attorney General Gonzales says that if that legislation is passed, then that would address some of the concerns raised by the judge, which indicates maybe this isn't a political decision.
GORDON: Well, as we said, this is going to be ongoing, this struggle, this fight, and it will probably go, as Joe suggested earlier, to the Supreme Court. So we'll continue to watch that.
We want to get in this story very quickly. And this has been a controversy since Andrew Young took the Wal-Mart Committee post. He has now stepped down from that post. He received a lot of heat because, as many of us know and have been following on this program, Wal-Mart has received a lot of criticism for, in many people's minds, being heavy-handed with keeping unions out of their stores, whether or not they are finding themselves in low-income areas and being the big fish in the small pond.
This is why Andrew Young stepped down. The controversial remarks he made during a Los Angeles Sentinel interview. He was asked whether he was concerned that Wal-Mart causes smaller mom and pop stores to close. This is what Mr. Young had to say:
Quote, Well, I think they should - meaning the small stores - I'm sorry, meaning Wal-Mart. They run the mom and pop stores out of my neighborhood, but, you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us, selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted and vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our community enough. First it was the Jews, then it was the Koreans and now it's the Arabs. Very few black people own these stores, end quote.
All right, Nat Irvin, many people very surprised by this statement. One might say it's a bit out of context. But this has caused Wal-Mart to say they step away from these statements. Are you at all surprised?
Prof. IRVIN: Oh no, not at all. I mean I think that what Reverend Young - first of all, you said the context is the key thing. Had he made these comments, although they are far too blunt and they do - they have the tinge of racism and there's a little bit more to the story than just what we're talking about right here. So, obviously, Wal-Mart is not going to be a part of that kind of message.
And then I also think that, two, Rev. Young also said later on that this whole position was taking a little bit more of his time than he really had time to give to it. And I think what happens here in this interview is that he unfortunately, should - he made too broad of a statement about closing down small businesses at a time when we really need more minority businesses to grow. And, obviously, that's something that all of us should be concerned about.
And you don't want to put yourself in the context of saying Wal-Mart is better than having minority-owned businesses, whether they're owned by blacks, whether they're owned by Asians, whether they're owned by Latinos. You don't want to put yourself in the context of Wal-Mart is better than having small, minority-owned businesses, and unfortunately that's what he did.
And the final thing is this: that this does speak to the angst that black communities have had over a long period of time. That you have other ethnic groups where you have to buy your hair care products or you have to buy your nail care products and so (unintelligible). It just a little blunt there.
GORDON: Let's be honest about that. I mean we had Spike Lee on just a few moments ago, and one of his great movies, Do the Right Thing, was just about this. And truth be told, this is the thought that the African-American community behind closed doors has had for many, many, many years.
Mr. DAVIDSON: Oh, there's no question about it. Many people in the black community look at the neighborhood merchants and the neighborhood merchants often are not black. But it also should be said that this isn't something we should necessarily blame the Korean merchant for.
GORDON: Right.
Prof. IRVIN: Right.
Mr. DAVIDSON: You know, many, many black people who are interested in black entrepreneurship basically say the black community should do more to own these stores. I think the way Andy Young phrased this, he painted kind of a very broad brush that these people who are outsiders sell us bad goods. And so the way that message came across got him in some hot water. Although certainly you could go to communities and you could find, at a particular time, Jewish merchants, you could find Korean merchants, you could find Arab merchants. And so that's not untrue. But the way he phrased it, I think, is what really got him in this fix.
GORDON: Yeah, the historical context is not true, but - or is true, but the broad-based...
Mr. DAVIDSON: Is true. Right.
GORDON: ...issue is in fact the problem.
Prof. IRVIN: Right.
Mr. DAVIDSON: Yeah. And just saying that these people sell us wilted vegetables and stale meat and all of that, then you get, you take it from a truth to kind of an accusation, an allegation and a smear.
GORDON: Tara, here's the interesting point here, that Wal-Mart, and one doesn't know what behind-closed-doors conversation went on, but Wal-Mart was quick to back away from all of this and made sure that they distanced themselves from these statements.
Ms. SETMAYER: Well, of course. They don't want to be associated with any type of racial marks like that. And - or for anyone - someone who's supposed to be a spokesman for them or, you know, promoting their goodwill in the communities. Because Wal-Mart has an image problem as it is. This is part of a massive PR effort to convince people why Wal-Mart is good for their communities.
And there are valid arguments on both sides for why they are good, and the negatives of running out small family-owned businesses. Is that the new reality of the way the global marketplace is working? Or is this giving opportunities and creating jobs for people in the community that the mom and pop stores couldn't do?
However, Wal-Mart absolutely does not want to be associated with comments like this. And I just think that, given the historical context of these outside ethnic groups coming into the black community as merchants, and maybe taking away the opportunities from black-owned businesses to have these, is something that definitely is an emotional issue. Especially for older black Americans who have seen the way this has progressed.
And I just think that Mr. Young needed - he allowed his emotions to trump sensibility in this case.
GORDON: One of the things, before we move on to another King disciple, and that's Jesse Jackson, one of the things that we often forget in that historical context is between - if you're going to follow it by Andy Young's definition, between the Jews and the Koreans - often black merchants for moments did hold those stores, either could not keep them afloat or quickly sold out when they saw the dollars that were handed to them. So there's blame across the board, if you want to look at it that way.
All right. The Reverend Jesse Jackson hopes to win the release of prisoners held by Hezbollah and Israel. He has entered into the fray, so to speak, Joe Davidson. It's interesting because the White House - and we've seen this with a number of presidential administrations, when Jesse - who has historically been a broker for exchange, often outside of the first time - has been seen as more of a hindrance than a help.
Mr. DAVIDSON: Well, you know, if you just would come into this for the first time, you might say, what? Jesse Jackson's going to get involved in this? But the fact of the matter is he has a track record.
Prof. IRVIN: Yeah.
Mr. DAVIDSON: And so as improbable as this seems, you nonetheless cannot discount it, because he has a record that he can point to in this area.
GORDON: Yeah, Syria, Cuba, Iraq, Yugoslavia. Tara, the White House has suggested that there are proper people, in their words, to bring forth this exchange, if in fact it happens. But isn't it hopeful that one who has, as Joe says, a great track record might involve himself without the White House concerning themselves out loud about it?
Ms. SETMAYER: Well, I think that Jesse Jackson, even though he has had success in the past, his political capital has decreased considerably because of many reasons that we could have a whole other show about. And I think that this administration feels as though his motivation for wanting to do this is slightly calculated. And his - I think that someone with Jesse Jackson's track record as far as his opinions about the administration and our response to the war on terror has not been one extremely favorable of the United States. He was - he didn't - he criticized our actions again Afghanistan after 9/11. He showed sympathy toward the Muslim clerics and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And you know, he - I think that some may feel as though that he may be more of an apologist or a sympathizer for the other side, and the United States, given the war on terror and the seriousness of what we're dealing with here, they don't really want someone that may be a little more sympathetic to the other side as opposed to America involved in this.
And given his history with Jewish Americans, even though he's apologized, but we all know there's been a checkered past there, it's a little ironic that he wants to get involved in this situation to have Israeli soldiers released.
Prof. IRVIN: I wonder if you can back up what you said about sympathy, being a sympathizer. That's a pretty strong accusation, to accuse somebody of being a sympathizer to the Taliban, to the other side, or to presumably to Osama bin Laden, so I wonder if you can back that up...
Ms. SETMAYER: His own words. You can look at his own words, where he came out and said that we need to - well, there's not a strong link to Osama bin Laden, We need more evidence. And, you know...
GORDON: Well, there were a lot of people that said that, Tara, including some Republicans who have made that suggestion.
Ms. SETMAYER: Not right after September 11th.
GORDON: ...that we should - well, but truth be told, that's the case now. But let me take it to Nat, and what you said. And that's a question of Jesse Jackson's clout. She talked about waning political clout.
But one sees Jesse's clout waning perhaps more in the United States than on the worldwide stage, because we did see him, in fact, come out over the course of this week with the Syrian Ambassador in hopes of making this happen. What of the idea of whether or not Jesse Jackson, on the world stage, still has this kind of political clout?
Prof. IRVIN: Well, I think you just - you said it just right, exactly right, Ed. It's - we're talking about two stages here...
GORDON: Well thank you, Nat.
Prof. IRVIN: Domestically is - domestically his stock is way down. Tara's right about that. But who else's stock is way down? George Bush's stock is way down here in this country. And when you talk about George Bush's - our global position, our foreign policy is adrift. We have no successes. None. No successes.
And I tell you, if - I've actually thought about writing a column. If I were George Bush I would appoint Jesse Jackson as a special envoy to the Middle East. We - listen, we need another voice.
Mr. DAVIDSON: So he can take the blame, right?
Prof. IRVIN: Well, I mean, the thing is, though, here's what Jesse Jackson would do. He'd talk to people. And that's what's missing from our foreign policy. Not only do we not have any direction, but we can't talk to people. We have this extraordinary sense of ourselves - you know, there was a headline in today's paper where the Chinese...
Mr. DAVIDSON: Wait for me, Nat.
Prof. IRVIN: ...said to the country, said to the United States, the United States needs to shut up. That's what the Chinese said to our - you know, we are in a position, frankly, where we need a new direction for foreign policy. Now, I'm not suggesting...
GORDON: Well, in fact...
Prof. IRVIN: ...that Jesse Jackson is the man. But look, he can't hurt.
GORDON: In fact, it's a new day and time. So Nat, we will see what happens. Nat, Tara, Joe, thanks so much. Appreciate it.
Mr. DAVIDSON: Thank you.
Ms. SETMAYER: Thank you.
Prof. IRVIN: Thank you.
GORDON: Next up on NEWS AND NOTES, when people think of cow pokes and horse wranglers, black faces may not come to mind. But a black rodeo touring the country is changing that. And, we conclude our African music series with the hip-hop sounds of Daara J.
(Soundbite of music)
Ms. DAARA J (Singer): (Singing) (Foreign language spoken)
GORDON: You're listening to NEWS AND NOTES from NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.