Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

UN Says CIA Officers Could Be Prosecuted; Interview with Outgoing Congresswoman Michele Bachman; Revealing New Details About ISIS Leader; Did North Korea Hack Sony?

Aired December 12, 2014 - 13:30   ET

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


WOFL BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Other news we're following, fear of prosecution now in the wake of the CIA torture report. A United Nations official says anyone in the CIA involved with the program could be prosecuted. He also says they could be considered war crimes. During his remarks yesterday, the CIA director, John Brennan, alluded to the fact that laws may have been broken. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, DIRECTOR, CIA: In a limited number of cases, agency officers had used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent, and rightly should be repudiated by all. And we fell short when it came to holding some officers accountable for their mistakes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our senior political analyst, David Gergen; and David Rothkopf, the CEO and editor of "Foreign Policy" magazine and author of a brand-new book entitled, "National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Era of Fear."

David Gergen, first to you.

Should CIA officials, U.S. officials be worried? Those who served in the Bush administration and authorized these enhanced interrogation techniques, should they be worried about going to Belgium or France of Spain and having some magistrate other there arrest them on war crimes?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No. I don't know who that U.N. official was. But if the U.N. tries to round up CIA agents and prosecute them, they're going to be run out of here. Americans will not stand for that. It's unfair. It's unthinkable. I don't think it's going to happen. I think it's unfortunate someone at the U.N. would say that. It only hurts the U.N., frankly.

BLITZER: I interviewed, David Rothkopf, John Rizzo, he was the CIA counsel, he authorized -- he's the one that signed off on the memorandums authorizing these enhanced interrogation techniques, which a lot of people call torture. Alberto Gonzales was the White House counsel, then he became the attorney general. Both said to me this week they are reluctant to go to Europe because they fear they could be arrested. And so there is this fear out there about what could happen. A magistrate in one of those NATO allies could think it's a good time to score political points back home.

DAVID ROTHKOPF, CEO & EDITOR, FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE & AUTHOR: I think David is absolutely right. The American people would be outraged.

Having said that, the rest of the world is outraged by the reports of torture from the United States. People may press their governments to hold action and hold the United States accountable in the same way that the United States is constantly calling to hold other countries accountable. And so I think it is risky.

And by the way, I don't think it's just torture. I think the drone program operated by this administration is also the kind of thing that will produce backlash in the long run. And I think that's one of the reasons that you saw President Obama walking a very fine line on this. You know, he was talking about these -- and Brennan were talking about this as abhorrent behavior but they were also, you know, saying perhaps enough is enough. Brennan yesterday said, you know, we've had enough transparency on this. I think they would like to see this go away because they have their own vulnerabilities.

BLITZER: If you take a look, David Gergen, international reaction to what is going on, a lot of countries are going to go out there and say, don't lecture us about human rights, you have your own issues, whether it's because of the enhanced interrogation or because of the drone program. Your reaction to that?

GERGEN: I think it's right to have America questioned by other nations. I think our actions, as Mr. Brennan yesterday acknowledged, our actions in some cases did go way out of bounds and there was, in effect, torture. And I think the international community has a right to say to us, don't lecture us on that thing. But to think that you're going to prosecute these people, you know, they are just going to -- I'm telling you, the reaction to that would just be unbelievably tough out of this country, and we don't want to -- listen, President Obama warned a long time ago, several months ago, people should not get too sanctimonious. And some of the countries lecturing us about torture, they have violated a lot more human rights and I think we need to have a serious conversation in the United States.

I thought Mr. Brennan yesterday provided a much more balanced account, acknowledging mistakes. I think that David is right that we need to talk about these drone programs. I think that's fair conversation and within the country and internationally. But what we got yesterday was a much more balanced, less one-sided view of what happened that I think it worth understanding. We had a report that came out from a Democratic committee with Democratic members only on the Senate and now we have somebody coming from a Democratic administration and trusted by the president to run the CIA. His word deserved a lot of weight.

BLITZER: David Rothkopf, you tweeted yesterday, "Why does John Brennan" -- CIA director -- "say my fervent hope is we can put aside this debate. Why would administration want it set aside?" What is your point? ROTHKOPF: The point is this is Barack Obama. He came into office, he

said he wanted more transparency. Now that he's been sitting in the office for six years, he's saying perhaps that's enough. I think we need to ask the question why. I think drones are part of the reason why. I think the NSA scandal is part of the reason why. I think we're coming out of a period of maybe a decade and a half of the United States overreacting to the terror threat and doing a number of things that, later on, we are going to say that we've regretted doing. And this administration has done them just like the Bush administration has done them. And that's why I think they would just like to take one step back and, you know, let the din go away and perhaps change the subject to something else.

BLITZER: Do you want people be prosecuted?

(CROSSTALK)

ROTHKOPF: I don't want them to be prosecuted, but I do think it's important that we acknowledge what we did, we don't play semantic games. This was torture, and that we say we're not going to do it again and make sure there's a bright line there.

BLITZER: Very quickly, David.

GERGEN: I part company with David on this. I think one reason they want this to go away, we have a war against ISIS and they need to keep the coalition together. When they have these international controversies breaking out, it may make it tougher to go against ISIS.

BLITZER: David Gergen and David Rothkopf, thank you so much.

David Rothkopf's book once again, "National Insecurity: American Leadership in an Age of Fear." A very important book and highly recommend it.

Thank you to you both for coming in.

Coming up, the outgoing U.S. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, we're going to talk about some unlikely bedfellows and the spending debate going on in Washington. She's getting ready to leave the United States Congress. Our exit interview with Representative Bachmann, that's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MICHELE BACHMAN, (R), MINNESOTA: This is the room where the laws of our nation are formulated. Our founders meant that the House of Representatives would be the most powerful form of government. Why? Because it would be these 435 members that we eventually became. We would hold the power of the purse. We would hold the nation's credit card.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in her farewell speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. This came two days before the vote on the $1.1 trillion spending bill.

The Congresswoman, soon-to-be the ex congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, is joining me now.

I want to talk about what you're planning to do, but you hated this $1.1 trillion bill. You voted against it. Tell us why.

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, (R), MINNESOTA: I did. Because it funded the president's illegal work permits and the members of the House of Representatives wanted a chance to be able to at least vote on defunding the work permits. That provision wasn't allowed to us. The bill came out really late and we didn't have a time to digest this bill and we were saying, look, why in the world are we funding government completely until October 1st when --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: The Department of Homeland Security until February when another vote will have to take place.

BACHMANN: All of the government is funded, except for Homeland Security.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: You have to compromise to keep the government going to avoid a shutdown.

BACHMANN: I've been married 36 years. I understand all about compromise. That's the way of the world. But there was no compromise. This was a top down, jam-it-down-your-throat bill on both sides of the aisle and we have Barack Obama and John Boehner lobbying for passage of the same bill. But again, this was all about amnesty. That's what this bill was about.

BLITZER: He's the Republican leader, John Boehner, so on this particular vote, you totally think he made a mistake?

BACHMANN: Well, John Boehner was kind enough to have a meeting -- a private meeting with me and Representative Steve King yesterday afternoon. We offered an alternative to what we eventually voted on. We said let's fund the government completely for 60 days and at least let us have a vote on defunding the president's illegal amnesty, and John Boehner wasn't going to have any of it. We had the vote passed last night.

BLITZER: You're now wrapping up eight years in the House of Representatives. Looking back, what would you say was the most important vote you took?

BACHMANN: The one I took last night --

(CROSSTALK) BLITZER: The most important?

BACHMANN: It was the most consequential vote because it really is a constitutional crisis. Remember, amnesty is not a law that Congress passed. The president just spoke it into existence. He didn't even issue an executive order. He spoke it into existence and Congress went along and funded the president's pronouncement. It's beyond any imagination. And that's what we are contending for. I just came from the National Archive where I just paid homage to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What we saw last night was a denial of our Constitution, because our president acted outside of the limitations under Article II.

BLITZER: Not just the president, but the speaker of the House, the Republican leadership as well.

BACHMANN: Listen, I'm with you. This was the political establishment on both sides of the aisle.

BLITZER: They worked out a deal.

BACHMANN: They worked out a deal. The cake was baked months ago --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Why are you leaving Congress?

BACHMANN: Why am I? Because --

BLITZER: You weren't defeated.

BACHMANN: I wasn't defeated, right. I chose not to run. I maximized every minute that I was here for eight years. And now I think that I can, so to speak, take the handcuffs off. We are limited to do a lot of things here and I intend to go around the country and speak nationally on a lot of different issues. I'll be writing. I'll be affiliating with groups. And maybe come back and talk to you once in a while. So I'm really looking forward to having the freedom to go and weigh in, especially up until 2016. I occupy a very unique space. I'm the only woman on the Republican side who's ever been in a presidential debate. I was in 15 of them. And presumably, we will have a woman on the Democratic ticket in 2016. So I want to weigh in on that race for 2016.

BLITZER: Do you want for the Republican presidential nomination again?

BACHMANN: I have no plans to put together a committee and run again, but I intend to weigh in and get involved.

BLITZER: Are you really going to run?

BACHMANN: I have no plans to run. This is a big thing. And there's about 16 candidates, my count, on the Republican side, who are looking at running, and I'm not looking at doing that. But I am being looking at being involved and I'll help whoever our eventual nominee is on the Republican side.

BLITZER: There's not completely ruling it out.

BACHMANN: Oh, for heaven's sake. Without a campaign committee, you don't fly.

BLITZER: But are you thinking about it?

BACHMANN: No.

BLITZER: Not at all?

BACHMANN: Not really, no.

BLITZER: You have to do something. You've got to go out there and speak.

BACHMANN: I'll be speaking and writing and weighing in. I've been on the front lines for eight years. While Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, I was a member on the Intelligence Committee. I was in Congress at the time, dealing with this issue of Benghazi and all the rest, and so I have a lot to say about these issues for 2016.

BLITZER: Michele Bachmann, I'm sure we'll be talking over the months and years. Thanks very much for joining us.

BACHMANN: It's been a pleasure. And you were fabulous as a moderator in the presidential debates.

BLITZER: Thank you very much. Maybe you'll be in one. You didn't say never. You didn't rule it out completely.

(CROSSTALK)

BACHMANN: Well, you're a great moderator.

BLITZER: You never know. Never say never. We'll see what happens.

Michele Bachmann, thanks very much.

BACHMANN: Thank you.

BLITZER: Coming up, a commander of the terror group ISIS is out with some new revelations about how the group formed. He says a prison run by the United States during the Iraq war actually played a key role. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The terror group ISIS has grabbed headlines around the world for its brutalities. The group's beginnings go back about a decade. One of the Islamic State's senior commanders is now revealing new details about how the group originated in an Iraqi prison right under the nose of American jailers. Those details revealed to "The Guardian" newspaper in Britain.

Brian Todd is following up on these developments for us.

Brian, what is going on?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Fascinating insight into Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS who was in Camp Bucca about a decade ago with the jihadist who was interviewed by "The Guardian" newspaper. His name is Abu Ahmed -- not his real name. But he spoke to "The Guardian" newspaper and said that Baghdadi back then was seen as a savvy, clever person, scheming, working both sides.

Here's what Martin Chulov, "The Guardian" reporter, said about what Abu Ahmed said about Baghdadi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN CHULOV, REPORTER, THE GUARDIAN: He saw him as a divisive figure and was trying to divide and conquer to establish his own authority and someone that did have leadership skills and someone that could act as arbitrator within camp disputes, somebody who could mediate. He said he was scheming and clever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Martin Chulov also said that, according to Abu Ahmed, the American guards, Wolf, at Camp Bucca trusted the Baghdadi, now leader of ISIS. He was trusted by his American guards and saw him as a fixer, someone capable of settling disputes between competing factions at Camp Bucca. He was allowed to roam loosely around the camp and have access to places that other inmates were not allowed to have access to.

Here is a quote from Abu Ahmed. He talked about how this was such a breeding ground for terrorists. Quote, "If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no ISIS. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology."

We're looking for comment from the Pentagon on this. The Pentagon told "The Guardian" that this was the best way to house the most dangerous people in Iraq at the time.

Again, the Pentagon may have to answer some tough questions. Why were these dangerous people allowed to roam freely, including the man who is now the leader of ISIS?

BLITZER: Why is this ISIS commander speaking out right now?

TODD: He's having second thoughts about joining ISIS. He is still a senior commander. Still a dangerous figure within ISIS. But they are so vicious, so violent. He says they go against some of the things that he grew up with, the principles of the Koran, other things he believes in that are much more peaceful. He's having second thoughts but he couldn't leave the group because he'll be killed if he does.

BLITZER: Many of us remember the reports that last word that Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, said to his American captors who let him go. He said, "I'll see you in New York." TODD: See you in New York. Infamous words. We'll have more on this

in "The Situation Room."

BLITZER: All right, thanks very much.

Fingers are pointing at North Korea and massive hacking of Sony Pictures computers out in Hollywood. Was a Sony movie to blame and is North Korea really capable of carrying out such a hacking attack? We'll speak to an expert on North Korea coming up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Sony Pictures deals with a huge crisis over the leaking of the company's e-mails, investigators are trying to track down the hackers. Report zero in on North Korea as a prime suspect in the leaking, which prompted an apology by Sony co-chairwoman, Amy Pascal (ph). The plot of the new movie, "The Interview," involves the attempted assassination of the North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Un. And it so angered North Korea that they called the hacking a righteous deed but denies it is responsible.

Mike Chinoy is joining us on the phone from Hong Kong. He's a senior fellow at the U.S./China Institute, University of Southern California, and a former CNN bureau chief in Beijing.

Mike, you have been to North Korea 17 times over the years. First of all, do you think North Korea technically is capable of hacking Sony Pictures?

MIKE CHINOY, SENIOR FELLOW, U.S./CHINA INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (voice-over): The honest answer, Wolf, is that nobody knows for sure. And evidence is still inconclusive in the Sony case. North Koreans are believed to have a fairly extensive sort of cyber warfare, hacking capability. And last year, they were widely blamed for a series of sophisticated attacks on South Korean banks and news organizations. It's not impossible, but we have no way of knowing for sure.

BLITZER: And would the justification from their perspective, the rationale, be this Hollywood film, a comedy, if you will. That they would see this as so revolting that would generate this sort of hacking attack?

CHINOY: It's entirely possible. There are a number of reasons why. First of all, in fairness to the North Koreans, they're in a very adversarial relationship with the United States and now you have a film being made in the United States of an American assassination attempt on their leader. If you think, for example, how Americans might feel if an Iranian film production told the story of two Iranian journalists going to the United States to cover the Iranian president's visit to the U.N. but assassinate the U.S. president, people in the states may be upset. There's a history. Don't forget, Al Qaeda used people disguised as journalists who killed one of the leading anti-Taliban figures in Afghanistan two days before 9/11.

But most important, North Korea's system is based on worshipping the leader as a godlike figure. Kim Jong-Un is treated as a deity. This is not a system that has a sense of humor. And a film that both makes fun of him and talks about his assassination, cuts to the heart of North Korea's legitimacy. And so I think it's entirely possible that a film like this would make them angry enough to try and retaliate.

BLITZER: Tell us briefly about your new eBook, "The Last POW." Tell us about the new book.

CHINOY: "The Last POW" is my account of the ordeal of Merrill Newman. He was the Korean War veteran detained for two months last year. Since returning to the states, Newman has largely kept out of public view but he shared his story with me, and it's a fascinating story because it goes back to his work during the Korean War. He was an adviser to anti-Communist Korean guerrillas who operated behind North Korean lines. And he thought that 60 years later that his role in the Korean War would not be a big deal, and that North Koreans with so many decades passing, it wouldn't be a big problem. But in North Korea, for the North Koreans, the war never ended. He was detained. He was interrogated for weeks on end. He was accused of being a spy. And "The Last POW" tells this remarkable story of how this feisty 85- year-old American matched wits with North Korean interrogator and kept himself together until he was released.

BLITZER: A really good read. I recommend it, "The Last POW." Mike Chinoy, a real expert on North Korea.

Mike, thanks very much.

That's it for me. I'll see you at 5:00 p.m. eastern in "The Situation Room."

For our international viewers, "Amanpour" is next.

For our viewers in North American, "Newsroom" with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.