Top Videos
Related Topics
abortion
supreme court
vtech
2008 Polls NationalIowaNew HampshireGeneral Election
GOP | DemGOP | DemGOP | DemHead-to-Head

Send to a Friend | Print Article


Special Report Roundtable - April 18

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Said it is incoherent, laced with profanity, he rails against hedonism and Christianity.

CHO: You just loved crucifying me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terrorizing my heart and ripping up my soul all this time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, that's a further piece of this video that was sent to NBC News. Apparently, from what we tell about it, it consisted of the video, a number of pictures of Cho and of an 1,800 word manifesto, which as or colleague Catherine Herridge was just reporting, goes on and on and on about this man's desire to seek revenge or whatever, but it never says upon who and it never really specifies to whom his anger is really directed.

Some thoughts on all this now from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and the syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer -- FOX NEWS contributors, all.

Well Charles, you in your prior life was a -- were a psychologist. We've seen bits and pieces of information about this man indicating that his behavior, it alarmed some, or concerned some. That he had been referred for counseling, but no one apparently thought he was capable of what he was capable of. And this video we see, is by far the most extreme example of it all. Your thoughts.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Absolutely, and he was actually admitted once, to a hospital. Fifty years ago he probably would have ended up, more likely, in a state mental hospital, then in a state university.

But from the pictures we've just seen, the kind of iconic photograph of the way he was methodical in everything he did. The one thing you can say psychiatrically speaking, is he was not as schizophrenic -- that we colloquially think of as delusional or hallucinating. This is a man who planned it out. This was a very methodical -- schizophrenics are quite disorganized. He wasn't. He was too organized.

What you can say, just -- not as a psychiatrist, but as somebody who's lived through the a past seven or eight years, is that if you look at that picture, it draws its inspiration from the manifestos, the iconic photographs of the Islamic suicide bombers over the last half decade in Palestine, in Iraq and elsewhere. That's what they end up leaving behind, either on al Jazeera or Palestinian TV. And he, it seems, as if his inspiration for leaving the message behind in that way, might have been this kind of suicide attack, which, of course, his was. And he did leave the return address return "Ismail Ax." "Ismail Ax." I suspect it has some more to do with Islamic terror and the inspiration than it does with the opening line of Moby Dick.

HUME: Which was, "My name is Ishmael."

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Look, we have no evidence that he's in anyway linked to Islamic terrorism or that he even read any of it. I mean, the Columbine killers were all presumably inspired by Dungeons and Dragons and acid rock or whatever that led to their violent fantasies. I mean, mentally ill people adopt whatever violent examples their art in the culture or in the atmosphere and the mimic them. I mean, everybody is sort of trying to figure out, OK, what could we have done here that would made something different, prevented this from happening...

HUME: And should the extent to which he turned out to be, a terrible danger, not just to himself, but to everyone around him, have been detected sooner, where the signs there? Where they sufficient?

KONDRACKE: Well, he was declared, at one point, by a court, according to Catherine Herridge's report.

HUME: Not a court.

KONDRACKE: Well, there was a finding that he was mentally ill and that he presented a danger to others...

HUME: And that was what was apparently required to refer him to the counseling center which he then went and, on his own, voluntarily...

KONDRACKE: And he got through...

HUME: And he got through and he was -- and he came back.

KONDRACKE: What are you going to say? I mean, somebody should have caught this and done something more about it. Maybe it should have been in a record that was accessed when he tried to buy the guns. I mean, all of this and needs to be investigated and checked out and, you know, you'd hope that something would be tighter and prevent this from happening in the future, but, you know, it's inexplicable why these things happen, you try to prevent them, but can't.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Well, he went for counseling and then they didn't lock him up, as they might have, as Charles said, 50 years ago. They said he could get out patient treatment.

You know, colleges do not act like parents anymore. They're not allowed to do that. You know, you can't get -- I have to get my son, Freddy's in college, I have to get his permission so I can see his grades. I can't -- I pay the bills, but he has to give me his permission to see the grades. The Virginia legislation...

HUME: Well, in this case, we're dealing with somebody who's not your normal college age, he was older -- we as a legal adult in all respects.

BARNES: Well, he was. Of course he was. But there are all kinds of depressed and lonely and weird people wandering around on campuses. If you wanted to find those people, I would send you to the local campus to find then. There are a lot of depressed college students. Obviously not -- in his case -- you know, the Virginia legislature, both houses, of the Virginia legislature, voted unanimously in January to pass legislation that barred colleges from suspending or expelling a student on the grounds that he was acting in a crazy way or had even committed -- tried to commit suicide. That they voted to bar Virginia colleges from doing that. And I mean, there's just very little that colleges are allowed to do, even with a student manifesting the things that Joe (SIC) was.

HUME: Next up with our panel, we'll discuss today's Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortions -- a major development. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANCY NORTHUP, CTR FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: This is a dark day for Americans who care about women's health and rights. In today's decision, the court, this new Roberts court just a year after being pulled together, has reversed 30 years of constitutional law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, what the court actually did today was to say that there is at least one restriction on a woman's right to an abortion that it will not find unconstitutional and that is the right to the procedure that is come to be known as partial birth abortion where in the unborn, but living fetus's head is partially extracted from the womb and then it's punctured and brain sucked out in order to kill it.

The argument for that procedure -- or against that procedure has been that it is utterly barbaric and medically unnecessary. People like Ms. Northrop, whom you just heard, disagree about that, but the court found that this was something that could be legitimately and without violence to the court's prior precedence on this issue, could be tolerated.

What about this decision? It isn't exactly sweeping in that it affects only this one procedure, but will it be sweeping in its effect?

(CROSSTALK)

Go ahead.

KONDRACKE: Well, it -- certainly there will be other states that now will have the option of seeking further restrictions on abortion probably to see where the limits are.

HUME: Of course there will be other states -- because there's now a federal ban.

KONDRACKE: And maybe -- no, no, but I mean, there will other kinds of bans, other kinds of narrowing of this. Now you know, this is -- look, it's a ghastly procedure and no one would want to do it unless they -- it was unavoidable. Now, this doesn't...

(CROSSTALK)

Just a second. It would not -- well, just a second. Kennedy said today that there are other procedures...

HUME: Justice Kennedy writing for the majority -- 5-4 majority.

KONDRACKE: Also brutal, that could be used and protect the health of the mother, such as destroying the fetus within the womb and not taking it out first and injecting it lethally and extracting it, and such. But, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that what's known as partial birth abortions offers significant safety advantaging over the non-intact method including reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage, et cetera.

HUME: Well, how come wasn't used in all cases?

KONDRACKE: It -- because, it doesn't have to be used in all case. The face is that the experts on this say that this is the safest procedure that can be used and this law, disregards the health of the mother. That's the problem.

BARNES: No, no, no it doesn't. You obviously...

KONDRACKE: Yes, it does. It does (INAUDIBLE)...

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARNES: You obviously -- well, you paid little attention to it. The American Medical Association has said there is no -- there is never a health reason for having a partial birth abortion. Look, the court said this is an area, whether there's a health risk or not that there is a debate about. And it's not certain that they are right or anybody else is right, but because of this, this is an area where Congress is free to legislate and that's what the court said. They legislated and it was proper for them to do it.

KRAUTHAMMER: This is not a sweeping decision. It's not going to have a sweeping effect. Kennedy, who was a swing vote here, was also one of those who wrote the Casey decision which upheld essentially Roe. So, it's not going to be overturned in this court.

Secondly, this is a great victory for any abortion (INAUDIBLE) -- it's a pretty odd one because the basis on which this decision is decided is that this procedure can be banned because a perfectly equal alternative, also barbaric is available and as long as it is, it means it's going to happen.

For more visit the FOX News Special Report web page.

Email Friend | Print | RSS | Add to Del.icio.us | Add to Digg
Sponsored Links