'Shop Talk': Charlie Rangel, LeBron James Face The Music

Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

MICHEL MARTIN, host:

I'm Michel Martin and this is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. It's time for our weekly visit to the Barbershop where the guys talk about what's in the news and what's on their minds. Sitting in the chairs for their shapeup this week: author Jimi Izrael, civil rights attorney Arsalan Iftikhar, NPR political editor Ken Rudin and syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette is actually here in Washington with us. So, take it away, Jimi.

Mr. JIMI IZRAEL (Author): Thanks, Michel. Hey, fellas, welcome to the shop. What's going on?

Mr. ARSALAN IFTIKHAR (Civil Rights Attorney): Hey, hey, hey.

KEN RUDIN: Reprimand me.

Mr. RUBEN NAVARRETTE (Columnist): Hey, great, man. Greetings from Washington, D.C., baby. It's a little colder here than San Diego, I got to say.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Yeah, it's a tough (unintelligible) there.

Mr. IZRAEL: Well, check this out. We're going to kick things off talking about the whistleblower site WikiLeaks, which released a quarter of a million secret State Department documents and has sent the Obama administration into a tailspin, Michel.

MARTIN: You know, this has been all over the news, as I think many people know. The top officials, like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have said that this is endangering national security. Here's U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder talking about this. He says he's launching a criminal investigation.

Mr. ERIC HOLDER (U.S. Attorney General): Along with other members of the administration, I condemn the action that WikiLeaks has taken. It puts at risk our national security. But in a more concrete way, it puts at risk individuals who are serving this country in a variety of capacities, either as diplomats, as intelligence assets. It puts at risk the relationships that we have with important allies around the world. We have an active, ongoing criminal investigation with regard to this matter.

MARTIN: I'd like to play for you the clip of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange defending the site and the leak of the cables and these other documents that were previously secret. And I just want to mention that the sound is a little muffled. It's from a digital video conference with Arab investigative journalists. Here it is.

Mr. JULIAN ASSANGE (Founder, WikiLeaks): This organization has a four-year publishing history. As far as we are aware and as far as anyone has ever alleged in any credible manner whatsoever, no single individual has ever come to harm as a result of anything that we have ever published.

MARTIN: Yeah. Yeah.

Mr. IZRAEL: Thanks for that, Michel. Now, Ken, I'm all for freedom of the press, right? The public's right to know, but this WikiLeaks, that's potential to cross some lines. Now, is the WikiLeaks, is an example of investigative journalism or is it an act of espionage? Get us started.

RUDIN: Well, there's nothing investigative about it. Basically the documents were stolen and they were sent to WikiLeaks and they published it. So there's really not much investigation going on. It's fascinating what it's done to our relationships with our allies. I mean the fact is we now know the president of Yemen is supporting U.S. air attacks on suspected al-Qaida attacks outpost when the president of Yemen is telling his own people that he's against it.

So, I mean there are a lot of lies going out that have been uncovered and it's made - put a lot of people in uncomfortable positions. But having said that, you know, all the smiles that we publicly that we say about Pakistan, we now know our true feelings about our relationship with Pakistan, our relationship with Russia and, you know, whether Putin and, you know, what's going on there. So a lot of interesting things have come out, but ultimately these are stolen documents that were published.

Now, a lot of people, it's interesting, a lot of people who are denouncing this are the same kind of people who applauded the leaks of the Pentagon Papers back in 1971.

MARTIN: Which were also stolen.

RUDIN: Which were also stolen.

MARTIN: But here's the difference. This is why I think this is such a difficult question, because the Pentagon Papers were in fact stolen, but it was an act of civil disobedience. He knew he was stealing them. He was stealing them because he felt that this was in the service of exposing wrongdoing, criminal behavior in his view, or at least wrong behavior by the government. It was not simply a question of peaking behind the curtain.

So that's the difference. I mean, traditionally the leaks that we have been most interested in have been leaks in the service of saying the government is engaging in lying itself. And so, therefore, this action is needed in order to expose deception, deceit, wrongdoing, misconduct, et cetera.

RUDIN: I think there's a lot of lies that went on during Vietnam. There are a lot of lies that's going on in foreign policy today.

MARTIN: Right.

RUDIN: So, in many ways, it's more similar than we think.

MARTIN: Interesting. What do other people think? I'm interested in this. What do other people think?

Mr. IZRAEL: A-train. Go ahead.

Mr. ARSALAN: I mean, you know, the wiki wiki WikiLeaks story here is - it's taking on, you know, an entirely, you know, new paradigm within international law. You know, obviously now we have Interpol coming up with a quote, unquote, "red notice alert," which is technically not an arrest warrant. It basically says that if Julian Assange is found in any country where the country is a member of Interpol, which is pretty much every country in the world, they will contact Sweden on these sexual molestation and rape charges and then Sweden and that country will negotiate as to whether there will be any sort of extradition.

You know, what's interesting to note is that, you know, WikiLeaks gave these documents to media organizations like The Guardian in the U.K., Der Spiegel in Germany, El Pais in Spain, Le Monde in France, and then by default, The New York Times, where the executive editor Bill Keller said that they edited out information after the first dump that could identify confidential sources, all these sorts of things. So then the question legally becomes...

MARTIN: Can I just clarify?

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Sure.

MARTIN: The point of clarification, The New York Times did not get them from Julian Assange. They got them from The Guardian...

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right.

MARTIN: ...who had a cooperative relationship with him.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right.

MARTIN: Julian Assange deliberately did not give them to The New York Times this time, and it's not clear why. Apparently he was annoyed with them...

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right.

MARTIN: ...because he thought that they were questioning...

Mr. IFTIKHAR: He had given it to them previously.

MARTIN: He had given them previous documents, but he was annoyed with them because he felt that they were, what, criticizing him or questioning him or he didn't think they were tough enough on the issues he cared - so just to clarify that.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Sure. And the interesting thing is that, you know, for those people who, you know, are proponents of prosecuting Julian Assange, you know, the argument then becomes do you also prosecute, you know, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Le Monde, and all these other media organizations for publishing this information also.

And let's not forget that, you know, a lot of this stuff was all ready known in the public domain. Like, you know, Nicolas Sarkozy is an arrogant man. Quel surprise, you know...

RUDIN: Wait, really?

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. IFTIKHAR: You know, Silvio...

RUDIN: But hes French.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Right.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: ...Berlusconi in Italy, you know, is a big crazy, you know, mama mia. You know, this is a...

RUDIN: He likes women too.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right. Exactly.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: No. No.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: And so, I think the analogy with the Pentagon Papers is apt in the sense that this is sort of become our millennial version of that, you know, obviously with the Internet, with the advent of 24/7 information and things like that. And so I think it's going to be interesting to see - and let's not forget, Julian Assange is not an American. So, you know, people are saying that he should be charged with treason. Well, being not an American - with him not being an American, he owes no duty to this country under the law.

MARTIN: That's an interesting point. Ruben, what did you want to say?

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Well, a couple of things. First of all, I find - there's three things I find interesting about this. One is that sort of being pulled at from both directions. If you are a civil libertarian who believes in free speech and freedom of the press, you're inclined to applaud this sort of action, particularly if it came against the Bush administration, because then it's a twofer; I love the Constitution and I hate Bush. So in this regard, it's a twofer, it's very easy, we get back to the story about the wiretapping the domestic wiretapping story and the civil libertarians saying there is no issue here, the public's right to know is important, it's paramount.

This is different because if you happen to be pro-Barack Obama and the administration, you don't take - you don't like the fact the administration has been put in a very difficult position and are now calling for Hillary Clinton to resign in some cases for some of the things that has come out about the amount of information she's gathering on foreign diplomats and what she's doing with that information. And so it's put you in a bad spot in that regard. You've got I love the Constitution and I love Barack Obama and now I got to choose.

MARTIN: I just don't agree with that analogy is quick. In the civil wiretapping case that this is again leaks, we're in the service of seeing that the government is acting illegally and therefore, I must expose this using methods which have their own moral challenges.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Yeah.

MARTIN: But this is not that. They're saying theyre not saying that they're exposing wrongdoing. They're saying they just want to tell you how it actually is. That's it's...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Well, and it gets me to the other part of this is to journalists, it gets back to the other end of it, which is they are two parties here. I have more problems with the person who sold the documents. That person is in jail and should be in jail, in custody. But I got leaked documents all the time. You know, we would be out of business as journalists...

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right.

MARTIN: True.

Mr. IZRAEL: Yup.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: ...if we didnt use leaked documents. I would get leaked documents, at the bottom it would say you can't use this. And I would be like uh-huh. Guess what? So that's not my role. I'm not a cop. I'm a journalist. Lastly, I think it is a bit hyperbolic to say this is a threat to national security. I think it's an embarrassment.

MARTIN: If youre just joining us, youre listening to TELL ME MORE from NPR News. We're having our weekly visit to the Barbershop with Ruben Navarrette, Jimi Izrael, Arsalan Iftikhar, and NPR editor Ken Rudin.

Back to you Jimi.

Mr. IZRAEL: Thanks, Michel. Well, we knew New York Congressman Charles Rangel would have to pay the piper, and yesterday, the legendary congressman faced his colleagues to receive the rare form of public punishment known as censure, Michel.

MARTIN: Yeah. The bolt was pretty overwhelming. It was 333 to 79 in favor of censure, more Democrats than Republicans voted against it, obviously, but a significant number of Democrats did also vote for it as well.

And I'll just play a short clip of Congressmen Rangel after the vote. Here it is.

Representative CHARLES RANGEL (Democrat, New York): I fully recognize that constitutionally that this body has the full jurisdiction to determine the conduct of one of its members. And even though it is painful to accept this vote, I am fully aware that this vote reflects perhaps the thinking not just of the members but the political tide and the constituency of this body.

But at the end of the day, as I started off saying, compared to where I've been, I haven't had a bad day since. Thank you.

(Soundbite of applause)

MARTIN: Now, Jimi, do you mind if I ask you because you're kind of tough on the old guard. I hope you don't mind my saying that.

Mr. IZRAEL: True.

MARTIN: And I'm just wondering how you react to that.

Mr. IZRAEL: Listen, his response contained some of the dignity he should have kind of given at the front end, if you ask me. Listen, this is American politics: Everybody gets a third act. He'll be fine. Let's not cry for him. Let's maybe send him a pastry and keep it in motion.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Jimi, it does seem - this is Ruben again.

Mr. IZRAEL: Ruben.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: It really does seem he hasn't learned his lesson. This notion somehow of talking about the political wins, the fact that the party on the other side of the fence, the Republicans are now coming into greater prominence, that's obviously not a nonissue here. There were some Democrats that voted for some sort of - this is really a mild thing. Censures are a mild thing.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right.

Mr. IZRAEL: Right. Mm-hmm.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Further down the line was reprimand. He gets more severe...

MARTIN: Expulsion.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: No, no, no.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Censure is highest...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Censure is the worst...

MARTIN: Before expulsion. Yeah.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: I seem to recall reading and hearing from him, I mean one of the reasons I find him so contrite and sort of, you know, was that this, it could've been much worse for him. And I think that there is a tendency to sort of say, you know, this is not my fault, this is politics. And I think a lot of it is his fault.

RUDIN: Oh, I, no, agree completely. And I kind of think...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Ken?

RUDIN: I kind of think that had he been contrite months ago...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Yeah. Right.

RUDIN: ...it would have been a reprimand and it would've been a slap on the wrist but he fought it to the end. The only time hes showed contrition...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Right.

RUDIN: ...was right before the censure vote and the Ethics Committee and that's why there was an overwhelmingly vote to censure. And notice, in the press conference right afterwards, it was back to the same old Charlie. Well, you know, its politics and I didn't do anything wrong. You had to see Nancy Pelosi's face when she was reading off the charges yesterday. She was so somber and solemn and upset. Charlie was almost like, you know, la di da about it.

MARTIN: I dont know. So, go ahead.

Mr. IZRAEL: Well he is an American hero, not for nothing and I guess he looks at it like, you know, hes done more good than bad. And in the broad spectrum of things, you know, he should've been kind of been given the pass, which I don't agree with. But I...

MARTIN: I really know that he was saying he should have been given a pass. I'm not sure. Thats the piece I'm not quite sure of. But Ill tell you one argument that the Democrats made on the floor, and that is that there are people who have done worse things who got lesser sanctions than him.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right.

MARTIN: Who engaged - the only people who have really gotten censured have been people who took - who didn't pay taxes taking a bribe, and that's who...

RUDIN: Or sexual misconduct.

MARTIN: Or sexual misconduct or some...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Sure.

MARTIN: ...you know, serious legal charges. So their argument is this is excessive for what he did and it wasn't intentional. That's the argument. Clearly, the House didn't buy it.

RUDIN: But 105 Democrats voted against reprimand for, you know, when, there was an option to vote for reprimand, 105 Democrats voted against it. So not that many Democrats, really the Democratic Party was really sitting on this.

MARTIN: So then, fine. The anyway, the sense of the room as I understand, and Arsalan is like when are we going to talk about LeBron? When are we going to talk about LeBron? Let's talk about what really matters here.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: We're waiting.

RUDIN: We're waiting.

MARTIN: Hes like we're waiting to talk about it. OK. So for those who don't know, and I that probably includes Jimi because he doesn't care.

(Soundbite of laughter)

MARTIN: Even though he's in Cleveland. He made his return to Cleveland last night. Some people say this was the most anticipated game of the young NBA season. I'll just play - here's what it sounded like during the players (unintelligible). Now of course, people remember that Cleveland was really mad when LeBron not only left for the Miami Heat, but he also...

RUDIN: Mad is not the right word.

MARTIN: ...stayed this well, Ill just, I can't use the words that would be appropriate, made a big extravaganza about it. Had this hour-long special on ESPN to talk about it and this is how he was received by his former home team. Here it is.

Unidentified Man: At forward, 68" from St. Vincent-St. Mary High School, number six, LeBron James.

(Soundbite of booing)

MARTIN: Well, there were a lot of other gestures and signs, which again, in the interest of pace I won't share.

Mr. IZRAEL: Right.

MARTIN: Anyway, so, but, go ahead, Arsalan how did it come out for him?

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Well, you know, the Miami Heat, you know, beat the Cavaliers 118 to 90. You know, the Cavaliers are a lackluster team this year and Miami Heat, you know, Dwayne Wade, LeBron and Chris Bosh are only, you know one and seven against teams that are about 500, so they're playing way, way below any expectations. They've already lost twice to my beloved Celtics this year. You know, this is some, you know, I think this is more of a media-manufactured thing. I think, you know, compared to, you know, the actual reception at the game last night and, you know, he was joking around with Boobie Gibson of the Cavs and things like that. I mean I think that this is something that, you know, was just manufactured. I mean they're going...

MARTIN: Oh, come on. Have you...

RUDIN: I disagree completely.

Mr. IZRAEL: Clearly. Clearly...

MARTIN: What planet are you on?

Mr. IZRAEL: Clearly, it was something that...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Yeah. I'm going to disagree on that.

Mr. IZRAEL: ...was media...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Sorry.

MARTIN: Wait. Wait. Let me hear from Jimi just because Jimi, you're in Cleveland.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Oh it's two and two. Were split on this, right down the middle.

MARTIN: Jimi, you'd think it was like made up?

Mr. IZRAEL: Yeah. Yeah. Clearly.

MARTIN: Oh please.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. IZRAEL: Clearly it was...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Oh, no.

MARTIN: Somebody please, revoke...

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Me and Jimi agree. We, we...

MARTIN: Revoke his guy card. Revoke his guy card.

RUDIN: Its betrayal. The thing about sports and it's similar to politics...

Mr. IZRAEL: To who?

RUDIN: To whom? No, but it is.

(Soundbite of laughter)

RUDIN: I don't mean to be anti-semantic, no, but, no, no...

(Soundbite of laughter)

RUDIN: But the point is if like politics...

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Happy Hanukkah.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Yeah, right.

RUDIN: Thank you very much sports is emotional, it's heart-wrenching, it's gut-wrenching. You live and die with your sports heroes...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Yeah.

RUDIN: ...and this city was betrayed by everything that LeBron said and did.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: OK, I going to disagree with both Ken, that it's much of a betrayal.

MARTIN: Go ahead.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: I'm much more sympathetic to LeBron in all this and I become more sympathetic to him all the time.

MARTIN: Hes a free agent. What kind of free is not clear in that? Excuse me. But...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Exactly. I also, OK, this is a human drama.

RUDIN: But the way he left.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: This is a big deal.

RUDIN: Yes it is.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: His coming home was a big deal. It's a human drama and I have never felt more sympathetic to this guy. I thought that the fans behaved childishly, childishly as if they owned this guy and get a life, you know, Cavalier fans. This guy made a decision, he left the team, win some lose some but I think they took it way too personally.

MARTIN: You know, what gets me though?

RUDIN: Look at the way he left.

MARTIN: But let me get this - can I just say this? OK, I'm sorry. I know I'm the girl here. OK, I'm sorry.

(Soundbite of laughter)

MARTIN: But hes 25 years old. They're a lot of 25-year-olds who are sitting on their mama's couch eating chips, who are, you know what I mean? I mean he's 25 years old. I mean does the fate of the whole city rest on his shoulders? Excuse me.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: Oh, apparently.

MARTIN: I'm its like lame. Go ahead, Arsalan.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: You know, as the true NBA junkie here, you know, there was something - when he was on the Cavaliers, like even if you weren't a fan of the Cavs, any time he walked into a stadium people cheered for LeBron James. And now he's just become the persona non grata where every, I mean, he's getting booed in Memphis when they're playing the Grizzlies. Like he...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: He was a class act last night.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Right.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: OK. And the fans who booed him and the fans who acted like this was, you know, their property gone astray did not act classy. He was a class act and I think he said, you know, thank you for the time I spent here, and he came off better. He was the winner last night in more ways than one.

MARTIN: I still can't understand why Jimi and Arsalan think this was made up. I don't get it.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Well, because I watch basketball on a nightly basis. You know, again, they, the Miami Heat, you know, if they were 14 and two right now that would be a completely different conversation. They have been underperforming so much to the point where people are like, you know, they might not, they might get a seven to eight...

Mr. NAVARRETTE: I've got to say, this is not about basketball. This is, I'm sorry to say, this is - its betrayal.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Last time I think it was.

Mr. NAVARRETTE: No, its about the drama. It's a human drama.

RUDIN: The last time an LBJ betrayed us was 1968. LeBron James, Lyndon Baines Johnson, coincidence? I don't think so.

(Soundbite of laughter)

MARTIN: Oh no. Jimi, you get the final word because you're in Cleveland, even though you don't care, and we don't understand why you don't care.

Mr. IZRAEL: Well...

MARTIN: I'm going to send you a cookie. I don't know what it is I can do to make you care. But go ahead, you get the final word.

Mr. IZRAEL: Well, I mean I care. I'm just, glad to see LeBron did a great job and he was here to do his job and cool. My man, go in peace.

(Soundbite of laughter)

MARTIN: OK. OK. The sun came up again today.

Jimi Izrael is the author of the "The Denzel Principle." He joined us from member station WCPN in Cleveland. Also joining us here in our Washington D.C. Studios: Arsalan Iftikhar, the founder of themuslimguy.com and a legal fellow for the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding, NPR's political editor Ken Rudin, and last but not least, Ruben Navarrette, columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group and CNN.com, all here in our Washington, D.C. studios.

Thanks everybody.

Mr. IFTIKHAR: Peace.

RUDIN: Enjoy Cleveland, Jimi.

(Soundbite of laughter)

Mr. IZRAEL: Yup-yup.

MARTIN: And that's our program for today. Im Michel Martin and this is TELL ME MORE from NPR News.

Lets talk more on Monday. $00.00

Copyright © 2010 National Public Radio®. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to National Public Radio. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.