Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Fallout from CIA Torture Report; Expert Describes Alternative Interrogation Tactics; Officials: Khorasan Bomb Maker Still Alive

Aired December 11, 2014 - 07:00   ET

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


JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Chris.

That's right. The White House is steering clear this morning of the two big questions coming out of this torture report. Should CIA officials be prosecuted for the harsh interrogations? And did those interrogations even work? The White House just won't say.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA (voice-over): With the debate raging over the fallout of the torture report, the White House is staying on the sidelines.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest refused to weigh in on whether CIA officials should be tried for interrogation tactics the president himself has described as torture.

(on camera): Do those details warrant going back and reexamining whether people should be prosecuted?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Decisions about prosecution are made by career federal prosecutors at the Department of Justice.

ACOSTA (voice-over): The Justice Department says the federal prosecutors who looked into the program won't be launching a new investigation based on the report from the Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic chair, Dianne Feinstein.

Trial or no trial, the CIA has some big names coming to its defense from former Vice President Dick Cheney, who blasted the report on FOX News.

CHENEY: I think it's a terrible piece of work. We did exactly what needed to be done in order to catch those who were guilty on 9/11 and to prevent a further attack, and we were successful on both parts.

BRET BAIER, FOX HOST: This report says it was not successful.

CHENEY: The report is full of crap.

ACOSTA: ... to the agency's former director, Michael Hayden.

MICHAEL HAYDEN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CIA: What stunned me about the report most was the fact that it was written in the way it was written. It is an unrelenting prosecutorial document.

ACOSTA: Both men say the CIA is right in asserting that harsh interrogation techniques like those shown in the film "Zero Dark 30" actually prevented attacks and saved lives. But on that crucial question, the White House takes no position.

EARNEST: It is impossible to know the counterfactual, right? It's impossible to know whether or not this information could have been obtained using tactics that are consistent with the Army Field Manual or other law enforcement techniques.

SEN. MARK UDALL (D), COLORADO: The CIA is lying.

ACOSTA: Colorado Democratic Senator Mark Udall called on the president to clean house at the CIA. Udall said an internal review of the interrogation program conducted by former CIA director Leon Panetta found the agency repeatedly misled Congress about the brutal tactics.

UDALL: The president needs to purge his administration of high-level officials who were instrumental to the development and running of this program. For Director Brennan, that means resigning.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: But that is not happening, at least not any time soon. The White House says the president has confidence in John Brennan and the CIA director will have a chance to defend himself when he holds a news conference over at the CIA later on this afternoon -- Chris.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: Jim, it is interesting that a document that was supposed to end the discussion has done nothing but begin one -- Alisyn.

ACOSTA: A whole new one. That's right.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Chris, thanks so much.

Let's bring in now Colonel Steven Kleinman. He's a former senior intelligence officer at the Air Force. He has researched interrogation for decades and appears in a Campaign for Human Rights first. That's an advocacy group highlighting human rights failures in the U.S. government and private companies.

Colonel Kleinman, great to see you this morning.

COL. STEVEN KLEINMAN (RET.), AIR FORCE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: Thank you very much for having me.

CAMEROTA: As you know, there is a huge debate in this country, this morning about whether or not the so-called enhanced interrogation tactics actually did work on getting actionable information out of these detainees or whether or not they actually clammed up as a result of what some people call torture. Where do you fall on this?

KLEINMAN: Well, I think first of all, the report clearly lays out the systemic use of torture by any standard. And then the question we have to ask ourselves beyond the moral dilemma, which I think we should all be struggling with, and beyond the legal argument, which I don't really have standing to engage on, is whether or not it's operationally effective. Is it a reliable means of collecting useful information? Accurate, timely and comprehensive?

And I think the body of behavior scientist literature that would relate to, for example, cognitive functions would suggest no. I mean, an interrogator's primary goal is to win the access to somebody's virtual memory. I mean, all the information we want resides in human memory, and that's very fragile.

CAMEROTA: And Colonel Kleinman, you have studied this for decades, and the alternatives that you suggest, that you say work better than any sort of brutality or enhanced interrogation methods are fascinating. I just want to run through some of these that you say work much better. We've put together a list.

No. 1, you say give a gift. You think you could give a gift to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and he would open up and tell you information?

KLEINMAN: Well, let me -- let me phrase it in proper terms. Giving a gift is just an example of reciprocity. There's an adaptive and learned behavior that goes back to our evolutionary legacy. It's just we, when we receive something of any value, there's a very, very deeply driven need, requirement to give something back; and it happens over and over again in all sorts of settings. And certainly, it's demonstrated itself in the interrogation setting, as well.

And I don't mean to belittle or, certainly, to simplify it to say you give a gift and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will provide the answers that we're seeking. But it's a way of reaching out and creating a bridge.

CAMEROTA: It was fascinating, because you say that it's just in our DNA. If you provide one of these detainees, you've seen evidence if you give them a cup of tea, if you give them a blanket. If they're cold, suddenly they feel obligated to give you something. Is that what you mean by build a bridge?

KLEINMAN: Yes. Exactly. It's part of developing a relationship. Beyond rapport. I mean, there could be a situation where the detainee literally hates the interrogator. Hates being there. But they make a rational calculus that answering questions is more in their interest than not. And not because they're threatened. But because of the way the opportunities are presented.

And reciprocity, I mean, there's six fundamental principles of persuasion, based on Dr. Robert Cialdini's work, which drives the multibillion-dollar advertising industry; and to say that it's not applicable in the interrogation room does not -- is inconsistent with the behavioral science research that we've done, certainly in the last ten years.

CAMEROTA: Another thing that you recommend that you say is highly effective is use scarcity on them. What does that mean? KLEINMAN: Absolutely. When anything is seen as -- viewed as in

limited quantity, we place greater value on it. Whether it's water during a drought or food during a famine.

And opportunities to -- to gain something by providing information can be presented in a way that's very limited. For instance, we're talking to three people, and the first person that is helpful to us, will receive something of release: a better treatment, you know, moving to -- out of the detention facility into some other facility. And so you can present it that way, and you can construct it in a way that becomes very, very appealing.

CAMEROTA: One of the most fascinating that you write about, being an effective tactic is -- and it flies in the face of everything that enhanced interrogation techniques stand for. It's avoid humiliation. How does avoiding humiliation work better than using humiliation?

KLEINMAN: Well, if you think about the evolution, if you will, of extremism, and I took part in a multinational, multi-year study looking at precisely that. What motivates somebody to choose the path of extremism.

And you look at Lawrence Wright's book, "Looming Tower," you look at the self-reports of thousands of young extremists, and humiliation is at the bottom. The lack of opportunity, the lack of -- to get a job, to marry, to have social position, to move forward. And extremist group comes along, gives them an opportunity to be part of something much bigger than themselves. So humiliation is what's drove them.

So if humiliation was a key factor in their extremist development, why would we think that humiliation would then, in turn, cause them to cooperate with somebody that they see as the enemy? So the Army Field Manual technique, known as pride and ego down is a perfect example of an unsubstantiated approach that is probably counterproductive.

CAMEROTA: And in fact we know from the Senate report that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, at least according to the report, that once he was stripped, and waterboarded and shaved, he clammed up and stopped cooperating. That's what the Senate report says.

Colonel Steve Kleinman, you've given us a lot of food for thought this morning. Thanks so much for coming on NEW DAY.

KLEINMAN: Thank you for having me and covering this important topic.

CAMEROTA: Thank you. Let's go over to Chris.

CUOMO: All right. We have news on a story that explains how we got into this situation with torture in the first place. A terrorist who poses a huge threat to America may still be alive. At first it was believed a master bomb maker for Khorasan died in this U.S. airstrike. But CNN has now learned he likely survived.

Let's get to our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, with the latest. These developments are going to be very unsettling. But do we trust the information now? BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Chris, good morning.

The information is as good as it gets right now. But nothing is exactly clear. Two U.S. officials tell me they now believe that David Drugeon, a French bomb maker for the Khorasan group, did survive some previous U.S. airstrikes. They had thought he was dead. They never had a dead body. They never had a photograph of a dead body. These are intelligence assessments, if you will.

But based on additional intelligence that's been collected, monitoring of communications, talking to sources, they now believe over the last several weeks that they've come to the conclusion Drugeon did survive. Still don't have a dead body; still don't have a photograph of a dead body.

They believe he's alive, and why is this of such concern? This French bomb maker for the Khorasan group in Syria is -- knows how to make the types of bombs that can potentially get past airport screening. So that is a huge worry.

The Khorasan group's leader, another man, Muhsin al Fadhli, also believed he is still alive. So even as the war against ISIS goes on inside Syria, prosecuted by the U.S. and the coalition, this group of al Qaeda operatives inside Syria, known as the Khorasan group, it now looks like their top leadership remains alive and very dangerous -- Chris.

CUOMO: At a minimum, it's just a nod to how difficult any gains will in this war that's being fought right now. Barbara Starr, thank you very much for updating the report.

A lot of news in the headlines. Let's get to Michaela.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Here we go with those headlines.

Today senators from both parties are going to push for authorization of military force against ISIS terrorists. Senator Rand Paul is leading calls for the U.S. to declare war against the terror group, insisting the conflict is illegal; while Democrats are backing measures that would authorize the use of force. All the measures restrict the use of combat troops.

Major developments for you out of Hong Kong. Police arresting dozens of pro-democracy protesters, clearing away tents from what was their main demonstration site. Many protesters had staged a sit-in, chanting "I want true universal suffrage." Those who left of their own accord filed out peacefully through a police checkpoint. They were asked to present I.D. for possible future legal action.

Bad situation on the streets of Manhattan last night. Six people hit by a car that jumped a curb in New York's packed Herald Square. All the victims suffered serious injuries. They are expected to survive. The woman who was driving the car has also been hospitalized. She has been arrested and is now facing DUI charges. Funny man David Letterman has announced the day that he will step down

from his late-night gig. May 20, 2015. The comedian, of course, surprised everyone last April, including CBS, when he announced that he was going to retire in 2015. He is the longest-tenured late night talk show host. More than 32 years under his belt. He, of course, is being replaced by Stephen Colbert. We can't wait to see how that transition is going to go.

And Deadline.com did a little number for us. He will have hosted 6,028 episodes of both "Late Night" and "The Late Show." I mean, that's incredible.

Influential, and such a part of our, you know, consciousness and our society and our culture. It's so influential. It's been amazing.

CAMEROTA: Night after night doing that.

CUOMO: In a business of impermanence. He found a way to stick it out, despite his only personal journey along the way.

Do you think Colbert is going to do well?

PEREIRA: I just don't even know what to expect. I'm curious, and I'll tune in.

CAMEROTA: I don't know who he is, other than the persona that we see, his fake persona.

PEREIRA: What we see on the "Colbert Show." Who is the man behind the desk?

CUOMO: What about me?

CAMEROTA: I thought your "hmmm" suggested that you had a thought.

CUOMO: It's just more proof of how, you know, interesting I find your two takes.

PEREIRA: Is that what that is?

CUOMO: I don't need to have my opinion. You two are more than enough.

CAMEROTA: Good point. We agree.

Meanwhile, the Senate's report on torture found that brutal interrogation methods do not gather effective intelligence, or they say they also did not lead to Osama bin Laden. Does that mean that harsh interrogation methods don't ever work? We will ask a former covert operations officer at the CIA.

CUOMO: All this torture talk is taking the eye off a tortured situation going right now in Congress. A shutdown is still looming. There's a new wrinkle: John King will tell you what it is and what it may actually lead to on "Inside Politics."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: There's a lot of confusion surrounding this torture report. Did we torture? People are fighting over what that word means. But the reality seems clear. What is not as clear is whether or not what we did works, and whether or not the country is going to be more or less safe now as a result. There are, at a minimum, two opposite views on this. So let's get some perspective.

Tom Fuentes, CNN law enforcement analyst, former FBI assistant director; and Mike Baker, former CIA covert operations officer and president of Diligence LLC. That's a global intelligence security forum. Gentlemen, thank you.

Torture, Tom Fuentes, is as old a concept as violence itself. The assumption is it works and that's why it exists. You say that assumption is flawed, why?

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, I think, Chris, that it works in a limited situation. But for the most part, the other techniques actually work better.

I think the one-time torture to me would be, you know, where it's justified to some extent is the ticking bomb. The nuclear bomb is about to go off in five minutes in Manhattan and kill five million people, and you don't have time to use some of the other techniques, which actually are more effective but may take a little more time.

CUOMO: Mike, how much of this is just leftie wishful thinking about a peaceful world, versus the reality of what happened in these interrogations, what worked and what didn't.

MIKE BAKER, FORMER CIA COVERT OPERATIONS OFFICER: Well, I mean, I think there's no doubt there's part of that wishful thinking that, you know, now all these years on from 9/11, you know, it would be great to rewrite history and the way we felt at that time.

Mr. Fuentes is right, in a sense. I think we're on the same sheet of music. And that's part of the problem of this whole debate. That's been the problem for years now, is we've been debating and talking and reviewing the rendition and interrogation program, is that it tends to get over-simplified. It's all one or it's all the other. You're either talking to the detainee or it's all torture. There's no such thing as enhanced interrogation technique. Or it's not the totality of the program.

And what I mean by that is, yes, talking, developing a relationship is very, very important and is done in the vast majority of cases over the years. But to have in your kit bag other techniques, potentially to use, it's not as if they never work or they always work. Nobody is saying that. But what they're saying is you've got to take into consideration the totality of a program like this. Rather than just saying it's all this or it's all that.

CUOMO: Put up the full screen for us, guys. Some of the plots that the CIA claimed to have disrupted as a result of these enhanced interrogation techniques, were assessed by intelligence and law enforcement officials as being infeasible or ideas that were never operationalized.

Now Mike, what that goes to is, one, the CIA was being deceptive in telling us what worked and what didn't. That's one point they're making with that statement in the report.

The second is, and by the way, what they say was good was actually information people just said because they were in incredible pain, not because they wanted to be accurate. Do you accept either of those findings?

BAKER: No, no, I don't accept the notion. So I mean it's important to get that out. I'm in the camp that says I think this is a flawed report. I would like to have seen more of an investigative effort. By that I mean, I would like to have seen more effort put into saying, look, we trolled through a lot of documentation on this shared network that was established. Now let's sit down with people involved in the program, from the administration, the agency, military involved, whatever it may be, and actually pursue these and say, look, we've got a document here about Abu Zubaydah, or Bin al-Shibh. Tell me about this. Let's talk about this. What do you mean by this? Gather more evidence to put it into context. I think that's one of the things missing from this massive report.

CUOMO: Tom, the other side on that is they say we didn't do it because we had the documents, so we didn't need to deal with people that we think might be deceptive with us. Do you think that was a legitimate basis for not doing the interviews?

FUENTES: No, I think the interviews would have been necessary to complete the investigation, if nothing else to give it full credibility.

But I think that we've had a lot of politics involved in this from the beginning, I mean, even including the president. When he was standing in the U.S. Senate, you know, he was solely against the torture program and people should be held accountable. But the old adage, it's not where you stand on an issue; it's where you sit. So that was fine when he stood in the Senate. When he sits in the White House, he kind of changed that position. And now you have even to this day, the Department of Justice not pursuing whether they're going to prosecute people that admittedly did this program.

And there is -- there's been some misinformation. This actually is a violation of a United States statute, the torture statute passed in 1994. Title 18, United States code, Section 2340.

CUOMO: Right.

FUENTES: Can call for as much as the death penalty if someone from the U.S. causes the death or severe bodily harm to another individual.

CUOMO: Right.

FUENTES: So when you hear the story about the person freezing to death...

CUOMO: Right.

FUENTES: ... being shackled to the floor, that certainly would rise up to possibly a death penalty case.

CUOMO: My -- one of the things that doesn't pass the smell test here is that definition of torture is not confusing. You don't have to be a lawyer to know that it's severe physical injury, severe mental injury -- is well within the definition of so much of what is detailed in this report.

And yet, you get all these CIA types saying, "Yes, no, no, it wasn't torture. They told us it wasn't torture." I don't care what they told you. Don't you think you guys should have known that what you were doing were torture by any other name? You know, all these description of all of these things with the hose alone?

BAKER: Well, so it's I know pornography when I see it, right? I mean, it's -- you're diving into a very subjective realm. Because at the end of the day, it was subject to legal review. I mean, that part of it also is not in question.

And this has always been at the crux of this, is that, you know, OK our sensory deprivation, is waterboarding, you know, where is there a line? And we've reviewed these techniques. We put our own personnel through these techniques. Does that constitute torture?

BAKER: Yes, that's...

CUOMO: Let me stop you there.

BAKER: A lot of people think it doesn't.

CUOMO: But nobody believes that you did to each other what you did to these detainees. Nobody is going do believe that when you say, "We tried it out on ourselves." Come on, you didn't do it to -- you wouldn't do it to your brother the way you're going to do it to these other people.

BAKER: No. Of course not. But none of us are planning to fly planes into a building, kill thousands of people or behead individuals on videotape and blast it around the world.

CUOMO: But that goes to vengeance, not effectiveness, right? That goes to the anger you feel towards them.

BAKER: No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. It goes to what you're charged with, which is saving lives of citizens and our allies. That's what it goes to. It goes to preventing further attacks. It goes to gathering information in a program that you're developing or you're working on. And is it perfect? Absolutely not, it's not perfect. But let's not pretend that people are doing this in some rogue effort to, you know, blow their skirt up.

CUOMO: And that is the main crux of the pushback right now that people have to assess is are they having hindsight 20/20 in this report about things that were condoned all along by members of our government?

Mike Baker, thank you very much for spelling it out for us. Tom Fuentes, we appreciate the balance as always -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Fascinating conversation, Chris. Thanks so much.

When it comes to big money and politics there's one potential 2016 candidate who the wealthiest donors say they are ready to support. But it may not be who you think. John King will explain on "Inside Politics."

And one of Bill Cosby's accusers is now suing him for defamation, fighting back, she says, for being branded a liar. Does she have a case? We'll ask CNN analyst and criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: Twenty-six minutes past the hour, here's a look at your headlines.

The Justice Department says it will not be investigating or prosecuting anyone in the CIA in the wake of that shocking Senate report on the agency's torture tactics. Meanwhile, there are growing calls now for CIA Director John Brennan to resign. He is going to address the Senate report this afternoon. He's holding a news conference. We'll [SIC] take questions from reporters.

The U.S. has closed its controversial detention center near Bagram Air Force Base, ending American operations of any prisons in Afghanistan. The release of the final detainees ended the lengthy and controversial role of military holding prisoners who had not been charged with a crime. The prisoners were turned over to Afghan authorities a day after the release of the Senate report detailed widespread abuse to detainees post-9/11.

Today, black congressional staffers are planning to walk out of Capitol Hill, protesting the Eric Garner and Michael Brown grand jury decisions. Organizers say the demonstration is an effort to support the ongoing national and global protests against police aggression. In the meantime, six mothers gathered in Washington, sharing their pain in losing sons in police shootings.

Sony's dirty laundry being aired after that huge hack attack, including nasty comments about actress Angelina Jolie. In leaked e- mails to Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal, super producer Scott Rudin call Jolie a, quote, "minimally talented spoiled brat with a rampaging ego." He was angry at the Oscar winner after she reportedly tried to poach director David Fincher from Rudin's planned Steve Jobs film. Oh, you know we got to discuss this. Brian Stelter will join us a little later to discuss, last to dissect and opine on.

CAMEROTA: You're not going to stand for that, for Angelina Jolie. You're not going to let someone insult her.

CUOMO: Don't project onto me your fascination with a particular person.

CAMEROTA: Yes, that's actually me that I'm talking about. I can't wait for that discussion.

CUOMO: That is something.

CAMEROTA: All right. So we have to get right now to "Inside Politics" with John King.

Hi, John.

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, "INSIDE POLITICS": Alisyn, Chris, Michaela, good morning to you.

This is the day, remember, the government is supposed to run out of money. So will the Congress keep the government up and running? Well, let's go "Inside Politics." With me this morning to share their reporting and their insight, "The Atlantic"'s Molly Ball; NPR's Tamara Keith.

This is deadline day. The House is going to actually vote. So they're moving forward; they might not meet the deadline. There's always that little sponge, room of sponge for a day or two. But they're moving forward in the House first.

Conservatives are angry. They say the Republicans just won an election in which they said we're against the president's priorities, especially on this immigration executive action. Erick Erickson, the conservative red state writing this morning. They say this is unconstitutional what the president does. He goes on to say, "They swore an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution. Therefore, if they fund the president's unconstitutional actions, they will be violating their oath."

So the grassroots conservative base is mad. But this is going to pass, right?

TAMARA KEITH, NPR: It seems entirely likely, and if it doesn't pass, it won't be because of the Republicans; it will be because of the Democrats.

The Congressional Republicans, House Republicans, somewhere in the neighbhorhood of maybe 70, 80 of them, are going to peel off and not vote for it. 30 of them would never have voted for it, no matter what it did. Democrats are upset, too, though. They don't like provisions that were tucked in about campaign finance, the Dodd-Frank consumer -- the financial reforms that were -- are being pulled back.

So there's something for everybody to hate in this. But it seems like they're right up against this deadline and they're going to find a way to cobble together the votes.

KING: And so I guess to that point if there's somebody for everybody to hate. Molly Ball, is there enough for everybody to like to get it through? Is that the idea?