Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

CIA Interrogation Program Ineffective; Senate Democrats Release CIA Torture Report

Aired December 9, 2014 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer, it's 1:00 P.M. here in Washington, 6:00 P.M. in London, 8:00 P.M. at Cairo, 9:00 P.M. at Baghdad, wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Let's begin with breaking news right here in Washington. Fallout from a new report condemning the CIA's, quote, "enhanced interrogation program" in the years after 911. The report concludes the techniques that critics call torture were ineffective and more harsh than the CIA admitted. It also says the agency misled the American public about the program. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chair of the Intelligence Committee, conducted the investigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CHAIRWOMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: It shows that the CIA's actions, a decade ago, are a stain on our value and on our history. The release of this 500-page summary cannot remove that stain but it can and does say to our people and the world that America is big enough to admit when it's wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes. Releasing this report is an important step to restore our values and show the world that we are, in fact, a just and lawful society.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: She then got the backing from Senator John McCain who's been an outspoken critic of the enhanced interrogations. Here's what he said on the Senate floor only moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I rise in support of the release, the long delayed release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's summarized unclassified review of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques that were employed by the previous administration to extract information from captured terrorists. It's a thorough and thoughtful study of practices that I believe not only failed their purpose to secure actionable intelligence to prevent further attacks on the U.S. and our allies but actually damage our security interests as well as our reputation as a force for good in the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: The techniques were used during the administration of President George W. Bush. He spoke out in support of the CIA before the report was officially released a couple of hours ago. And the former vice president, Dick Cheney, told "The New York Times" CIA operatives should be, quote, "decorated not criticized." He says conclusions that the CIA conducted a rogue operation are, in his words, quote, "a bunch of hooey." The Intelligence Agency is also firing back at the Senate report. The CIA says the program did, in fact, provide valuable intelligence in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It says the Senate report contains, quote, "too many flaws to be considered an official record of the program." Strong words from the CIA condemning this Senate report.

Let's get details, let's get reaction from our correspondents who are going through the report. Joining us, our Justice Reporter Evan Perez. He's been dissecting the report. Our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta. He's getting reaction from the Obama administration. And our Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash. She's up on Capitol Hill.

Evan, it's hundreds and hundreds of pages. We've got the whole report now. People are going to be spending a lot of time reading the details. You're going through it together with all of our reporters and our producers. We're studying it. Give us a couple of the main -- the main highlights.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Wolf, the big question is, did this report -- did this program stop plots against the United States? Did it -- was it effective in preventing terrorism against this country? And the biggest finding from this report, Wolf, is that the program was ineffective, that it was more brutal than the CIA ever told Americans, ever told the president, ever told the Congress, that it was poorly managed. The CIA didn't really know what it was doing in managing this program, lost track of detainees for a period, and that it misled not only the Congress, the Justice Department, but also the White House.

President Bush himself did not get briefed fully on this, Wolf, until 2006, according to the Senate report, which is a big deal because, as you know, President Bush in his biography describes that he was fully knowledgeable about what was going on, that he supports it, that he thought everything was done properly.

BLITZER: You know, the CIA -- and you went through this. The CIA issued a very lengthy statement basically condemning this report. The CIA statement, among other things, and I just highlighted a couple of things, they said their review of the interrogations, the enhanced interrogations did produce, in their words, intelligence to help thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, save lives. And it -- they also say it did play a significant role in the -- in finding Osama Bin Laden. So, there's a clear discrepancy --

PEREZ: Right.

BLITZER: -- what the CIA, today, during the Obama administration, is saying about the flaws of this report that Dianne Feinstein released. PEREZ: We should also make clear that they say that, you know, they

disavow the program. They say it was a bad idea. I think John Brennan put out a statement saying we did not always live up to the high standards that we held for ourselves and the American people expect of us. So, he's acknowledging that this is a mistake.

However, at the same time, they're walking a fine line. They say that there are at least three detainees that provided valuable intelligence that led to the -- to the finding of Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ammar Al Baluchi and Hassan Ghul. You can look -- read through the report. You will find their case studies and you can see the CIA's description of the valuable intelligence it says came from this program.

BLITZER: The White House -- let's go to the White House. Jim Acosta is our Senior White House Correspondent. Jim, the White House put out a lengthy statement praising, in effect, the report, praising Senator Dianne Feinstein.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right.

BLITZER: It's sort of unusual, though. You've got one branch of the executive -- one part of the executive branch, the CIA, saying they're wrong. The interrogation techniques were useful in finding Bin Laden and getting other information that thwarted terrorist attacks. You've got the Senate Intelligence Committee, the majority there at least, saying it wasn't very useful, these interrogation techniques. This is a very fine line for the White House to be walking right now.

ACOSTA: Absolutely, Wolf, and you can see that in the president's statement that was released shortly after the Feinstein report went online. The president saying in that statement -- you don't see this very often, Wolf, where the president was, essentially, criticizing the previous administration. He did that a lot when he was running for president. He blamed President Bush a lot for the things that had been going wrong at the beginning of his own administration. But we haven't seen that much lately. And so, to see that in the statement is interesting. He says, at one point, the Bush administration had agonizing decisions to make after 911 but that some of the decisions that were made were contrary to our values.

The president did point out that he is proud of the work that is done over at the CIA. But let me put this up on screen. The one thing he did say that I thought was very striking. He says this report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as a nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests.

Moreover, these techniques did significant damage to America's standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners. And keep in mind, Wolf, the Obama administration was willing to go along with the Feinstein report. They did not stand in the way of the Feinstein report, as a matter of fact, when the select committee on intelligence staffers were trying to get this review out. They went to the intelligence community. They said, OK, go ahead and make your redactions. Those redactions came back. This report came back yesterday, Wolf, 93 percent unredacted, I'm told from one senior administration official.

And so, they feel like, as one official put it, that the narrative is not lost on the public here. And it's clear, when you go through this report, this Feinstein report, some of the techniques that were used, some of the details of those techniques that were used are to an extent in this report that I don't think we've seen before this extensively. And so, I think there's a shock value in this report that, I think, a lot of people are not prepared to really absorb. And so, they read this for the first time.

And so, the Obama administration doing something really kind of unprecedented here and really revealing, you know, putting out there to the American public what was done in a previous administration. It's a little bit of a tricky balancing act, Wolf, because, as you know, President Obama, he's going to leaving office in a couple of years. And then, the things that were done during this administration would be very much open game for the next administration. It's a Republican administration. They could look back with an unsparing view as well. So, the Obama administration is obviously very aware of that, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, and some Republicans already suggesting they're going to take a closer look at the -- of the Obama -- the president's use of drones to go after --

ACOSTA: That's correct.

BLITZER: -- suspected targets in which a lot of civilians, inadvertently, are killed in the process as well. Not just tortured but killed and that's going to be a subject, potential, for investigation down the road. I want to go to Dana, in a moment, but, very quickly, Evan, the -- if you read this lengthy, and it is a lengthy CIA -- this condemnation of the CIA and the enhanced interrogation report put out by the majority of the Senate Select Committee on intelligence. It sounds -- if you hear what Dianne Feinstein said on the floor, like major crimes were committed by U.S. officials at the highest levels of the government violating international treaty obligations against the use of torture. Here's the question, because I know you're speaking to your sources over at the Justice Department, are charges going -- in the aftermath of the release of this report, are charges going to be filed against Bush administration officials, CIA operatives for engaging in what they describe as torture?

PEREZ: Well, this is something that the attorney general, Erica Holder, looked at. And he said -- when he came in and read some of the reports here, the details of this report, he said he was very bothered and that's why he ordered another investigation, a second investigation of this program, Wolf. And he decided, in the end, there was no prosecutable crimes and they are standing by that decision today. Now, this does not mean that they endorse this and they make clear that they believe that this is not a judgment on the appropriateness of this and whether this was a moral program. Clearly, Eric Holder and the president himself, they both describe this as torture. So, they think that this was -- this is very bad. The question is, can you prosecute anyone? No.

BLITZER: In the United States. But, in fact, the U.S. did engage in torture, that would be violations of international law, U.S. treaty obligations and, potentially, -- I don't think this will happen but, potentially, the U.S. could be brought before the international criminal court in the Hague for crimes against humanity, as they say.

Let's go to Dana Bash up on the Hill. It looks like Dianne Feinstein got a nice rousing bit of endorsement from John McCain. But a whole bunch of other Republicans, as you well know, Dana, they're pretty outraged by this decision to release this report.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. John McCain, in this case, is not representative of his party. Remember, back when George W. Bush was in office, McCain really fought him on using these techniques along with Lindsay Graham, another Republican, and who also supports the release of this. Most Republicans think that this is wrong from the inside out, meaning they don't agree with the content of the report. They think that it was, in the words of the incoming Senate Intelligence chairman, Richard Burr, that it's fiction. That they didn't properly get the facts, that they didn't interrogate or, actually, question the interrogators who actually did this and that that's why it is false.

The other reason why Republicans are upset is because of the timing. They think that the world is a very shaky place right now and this just adds fuel to the fire. Listen to what Marco Rubio, the Republican from Florida, said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: It's going to put a danger to American service men and women, American diplomats serving abroad. They know it puts in danger our lines with key partners on the war on terror and they're going to go forward with it anyway because they're more interested in trying to embarrass the Bush administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Trying to embarrass the Bush administration, that's another layer of Republican criticism of releasing this report, Wolf. They say that they believe it's political, that this is the last chance for Democrats who are going to lose control of the Senate when this lame duck session ends this week to show their over -- their oversight and the work of their oversight. However, just a reality check here. If Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman had her way, this would have been released months ago, a long time ago. This is years in the making. She has been going back and forth with the CIA, with the Obama administration, actually, about what to release, what not to release.

So, you know, for someone like Dianne Feinstein, she does not, obviously, consider this to be political. And, as you know, Wolf, she is certainly not one of the most dovish members of the Senate. She tends to be with the caucus (ph) especially our national security but she viewed this as a critical important oversight responsibility for her as the Intelligence chairwoman.

BLITZER: But just to be clear -- be clear on that last point you were making, Dana. If they wouldn't have released it this week, the chances of it being released when the Republicans are the majority in the --

BASH: Exactly.

BLITZER: -- Senate starting in January when they're the majority in the Senate Select Committee on intelligence, the chances of it being released then were pretty nil, right?

BASH: That's right because the Democratic led intelligence Committee voted. They didn't -- she didn't just do this on her own. They act -- the committee actually voted a couple of months ago. I believe the results were 11 to three so it wasn't even close to release this. But if -- that all kind of is null and void once the new Senate takes over. So, the Republican -- the chances that the Republican chairman against -- again is going to be Richard Burr of North Carolina, would hold the vote, never mind (ph) want to release it, very slim.

BLITZER: Yes, very slim indeed. All right, Dana, thanks very much. Jim Acosta, thanks to you. Evan Perez, we'll continue to go through this lengthy report, get more details.

Still to come, a former CIA officer and a former Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, they offer their views on the Senate's scathing report on CIA interrogations of terror suspects.

And later, we're going to hear, in an exclusive interview with the defense secretary, Chuck Hagel. We're going to get his take on the release of the report and on the mission against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Lots of news happening. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been one of the biggest champions of the CIA's secret activities in the wake of 9/11. It is therefore no surprise that he came to the agency's strong defense today in "The New York Times." Let me put up on the screen what he said. "What I keep hearing out there is they portray this as a rogue operation and the agency way out of bounds and then they lied about it. I think that's all a bunch of hooey. The program was authorized. The agency did not want to proceed without authorization and it was also reviewed legally by the Justice Department before they undertook the program," end quote.

My guests, the former CIA officer, Middle East station Chief Gary Berntsen, and the former Democratic congresswoman, Jane Harman. She's now head of the Wilson Center here in Washington. She was a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee for a long time.

When you hear the former vice president, Jane Harman, make those comments, saying all of this was authorized by the executive branch, the Justice Department, the CIA knew exactly what they were doing, they informed the ranking members, the vice chairman of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, they knew what was going on, your reaction?

JANE HARMAN, DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT & CEO, WILSON CENTER: I remember, Wolf, I was there, how afraid we all were, including the vice president, of our country being attacked again and all of us tried, in good faith, to set up the best programs to protect our country. But I think as this report shows, mistakes were made here in the way this was designed and the way it was reviewed. I learned of it in February of 2003 when I became ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, and I personally wrote a classified memo to the CIA general counsel who had briefed me, saying that, yes, he had argued there was legal justification for this program, but I said it raises profound policy questions. And I never received an answer that was substantive to this letter. And I think there was pushback by many in Congress who were briefed and didn't know about this program and we would have been much better off if this had been designed within strict legal boundaries that Congress approved and proceeded that way.

I think Dianne Feinstein faced an excruciating decision this morning to go ahead. I think she did the right thing and this was John McCain's finest hour when he stood on the Senate floor and explained, as only he can. He has the credibility that no one else does and he explained why torture is not the right way, consistent with our values or consistent with getting the truth, to get the information we desperately needed and we eventually did get.

BLITZER: He was tortured as a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War, as all of our viewers will remember.

All right, Gary, what's your reaction?

GARY BERNTSEN, RETIRED CIA OFFICER: Well, I'd like to say, if we were to go back to 2001 and recognize that when we invaded Afghanistan and I led the team in Kabul, we captured a Saudi prisoner and the first thing that he said to us was, there was an imminent, catastrophic attack going to take place in Singapore and that was - it was 20 tons of explosives that were going to go against the American embassy, the British embassy, the Australians and the Israelis. So immediately we stopped that attack, we captured the individuals with the explosives and it shows the CIA that al Qaeda has a number of attacks, at least that one, in train. They were looking (INAUDIBLE) move very quickly because they're going to continue to attack --

BLITZER: But let me interrupt, Gary. Hold on. Did - did you get that - how did you get that information from this Saudi terror - did you torture him or did he just volunteer it?

BERNTSEN: We did not torture him. He was injured. We gave him medical assistance. And we, and the British, spoke to this, this individual. But the point that I'm making is not the issue of the torture. The issue is, is that there were catastrophic imminent attacks that were going to be taking place. But the CIA then --

HARMAN: Yes.

BLITZER: Excuse me, Gary, but we all know that the terrorists out there want to hurt the United States, hurt U.S. allies. The question is, did the CIA go too far in using what they call these enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, all sorts of other activities?

BERNTSEN: No, I understand your question.

BLITZER: Was that - was that beyond the scope?

BERNTSEN: I got your question. I would say that it was not beyond the scope because what we were looking for was - and it was only waterboarding, it was done on three people, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayadah, and there was one other. And it was believed that all three had information on imminent, catastrophic attacks. That was the measurement that we were looking for. And, of course, the report states that CIA could have found the information in other ways. I've got that. You know, in hindsight, it's easy to claim that. This is 2014. In 2001, you know, it was a lot different.

BLITZER: All right, let's get Jane -

HARMAN: Well - yes.

BLITZER: Jane Harman, you were there. When were you told that the U.S. -- that the CIA was engaged in these covert activities, usually outside of the United States, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, what people described as torture, enhanced interrogation? How early in the process did you, as the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, learn about that?

HARMAN: I learned about it in February of 2003. The practice started a year early and the prior ranking member, I assume, was briefed in September 2002 when the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed. The leadership changed in 2003. And that's when I learned of it. I was told the specific techniques by the then CIA General Council Scott Muller. And he is the person I addressed my classified letter to raising - saying these raised profound policy questions. It is important to remember when this was. This was really just a year and a half after the most grievous attack on U.S. soil and we were all afraid of additional attacks.

I agree about - to the - about the comment about imminent - expecting imminent attacks. But the problem with this program was the way it was designed. I think the Senate majority report -- and I look forward to reading the minority report and the CIA report, too. They're not - they just got posted -- makes the point that this was sloppy, that those administering these techniques were not well-trained, that there were two outside psychologists who were paid $80 million to review this program.

BLITZER: Right.

HARMAN: And we could have done this a different way consistent with our values and for the world that's listening for the U.S. narrative, I think what's playing out today is explaining what democracy means, as painful as this is, as Dianne Feinstein said, history will judge us by our ability to face the truth and that's what's going on today.

BLITZER: All right, Gary, you spent your career in the CIA. Did the CIA use torture against these prisoners?

BERNTSEN: If I thought tomorrow that we had in possession an ISIS terrorist or an intelligence officer that was preparing a catastrophic, imminent attack, we'd have to have a real hard discussion at management as to what methods would we use. If we thought there was a bioweapon to be used against the United States, we're going to have to think about this because we're in a world now that is five times more dangerous than 2001.

HARMAN: Yes, we are.

BERNTSEN: But I would like to go back to Congresswoman Harman's statement where she talked about February. And I saw her message on the Internet that she wrote. And what I saw in thee answer from CIA was that there was a briefing, which she was not in, in July of 2002, where the (INAUDIBLE) was briefed on these mechanisms. And that's what they're referring to there. I'd love to see who was in the skif (ph) and who was briefed. CIA should have a record and they should have a record of what whole presentation (ph) and we'll see who knows what.

BLITZER: All right, hold. All right, guys, hold on. We've got more questions. That's the House Select Committee on Intelligence that Gary was referring to. I'll ask both of you to stand by. We've got more to access, more to discuss, including more reaction to the Senate's CIA report from a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We're going to get his take on the message, the bottom line message in the report, whether it puts Americans, civilians, military personnel, diplomats around the world in danger right now and the Pentagon has ordered thousands of U.S. Marines to go on a higher state of alert right now. They fear there will be retaliation against American citizens around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)