Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Jordan Agrees to Swap Terrorist for ISIS Hostage; Hezbollah Attack Kills Two Israeli Soldiers; Decision Coming on Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Aired January 28, 2015 - 11:00   ET

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


JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: Breaking news, negotiating freedom for ISIS hostages but at what price? New controversy, new questions about the dangers of cutting deals with terrorists.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: And the sun may be back out today but record breaking piles of snow remain. We're going to go live to the dig out, the big dig out, in Massachusetts and look at, also, what's to come.

BERMAN: On the brink of a decision about Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl captured and later freed in a hostage exchange with the Taliban after leaving his post in Afghanistan, will the military accuse him of desertion?

BOLDUAN: Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. A very busy morning here at CNN. I'm Kate Bolduan.

BERMAN: And I'm John Berman.

New developments by the minute as a deadline passes in the lives of two ISIS hostages. Just hours ago, Jordan made clear it is prepared to make a deal with terrorists to swap prisoners.

ISIS had vowed to kill a Jordanian fighter pilot and Japanese journalist Kenji Goto if Jordan did not release a would-be female suicide bomber who is on death row in Jordan.

BOLDUAN: That would-be bomber is Sajida al-Rishawi. Her explosive vest did not go off during a string of bombings back in 2005. That bombing, string of bombings, killed 57 people in Amman.

Moments ago, Jordan's foreign minister reiterated that al-Rishawi would only be released if ISIS frees the Jordanian pilot. The minister made no mention of the swap of the Japanese hostage. Right now, the fate of both men are in question.

There have been a lot of rumors and developments as we've been on air this morning. Let's get right to it. Let's bring in CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank. He's joining us here.

Paul, I want to talk to you. I mean, I guess first just get your take on kind of all the developments we've heard on this situation. I found it surprising that Jordan is really talking realistically about this swap, but you're not so surprised.

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: They want to get their pilot back. It's a big deal for them. He was shot -- well, he ejected from a fighter jet in Syria in December, was captured by ISIS, taken into Raqqa, a town in Syria. They want to get him back.

And ISIS, they want to get Sajida al-Rishawi back. She's an ISIS living legend.

BOLDUAN: But at what cost?

CRUICKSHANK: At the cost of doing a swap from ISIS point of view that this would be a big propaganda coup for ISIS. Even back in December of 2005, just a month after she was captured by the Jordanians, they tried to do a prisoner-hostage swap then, so they've been trying to do this for quite some time.

BERMAN: So Jordan will get its fighter pilot back. ISIS gets this would-be female suicide bomber from ten years ago back in their hands, but they get more than that, don't they?

CRUICKSHANK: They get a lot more than that. They're negotiating state- to-state with Jordan, with Japan, a sort of major world power.

This will be a big, big propaganda coup for them at a time when they kind of need a win because they've lost Kobani, this town in northern Syria. They've been driven out of Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad.

So ISIS really need a win right now. This would be a big recruitment pull for a lot of their supporters.

BERMAN: And of course we're waiting to see where the Japanese come down on all of this, because the Japanese journalist is involved also. We're not sure if that man would be freed in addition to the Jordanian pilot.

Paul, what are the complications for the United States here? Because we have two allies -- we have Jordan and Japan -- negotiating for hostages, which is something the United States does not do.

But we need both countries, particularly Jordan, in the fight against ISIS.

CRUICKSHANK: But the United States does do this, because we saw with Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl they did a swap last May for five Taliban commanders who were in Guantanamo Bay. So the United States cannot really tell --

BERMAN: Good point.

CRUICKSHANK: -- the Jordanians and Japanese, don't negotiate for your people, because they did it for one of their soldiers in the past. So there is a precedent for this.

And I think there may well be a swap at some point today. There are a lot of rumors swirling around about this. We haven't confirmed them yet. But I think it's quite likely.

BOLDUAN: Does a swap like this with ISIS, nonetheless -- does this impact Jordanian-U.S. relations? How do you think it could impact?

CRUICKSHANK: Well, I --

BOLDUAN: Jordan has been very important in supporting the American-led coalition against ISIS.

CRUICKSHANK: Yeah, I don't think it's really going to impact the relationship. I think any criticism is going to be very, very muted.

The United States really needs Jordan as part of this anti-ISIS coalition, an Arab country, a key power in the region involved in air strikes in Syria. So I think we're very unlikely to see any criticism from the United States.

BERMAN: What does it do for other hostages who might be in ISIS hands, including this female American that has been alluded to by U.S. officials?

CRUICKSHANK: Well, I think, you know, if ISIS succeeds this time, that there will be perhaps more demands for prisoner swaps. We've seen in the past demand the release of (inaudible), who's an al Qaeda facilitator in jail here in the United States.

We may see more of these kind of requests. And this will of course incentivize ISIS to capture more international hostages.

BERMAN: We've been talking about what the U.S. might think of all that's going on. Let's get some perspective from the man who has worked in the State Department. We're joined by former assistant secretary of state James Rubin. He joins us from London.

James, as you watch this, you know, we've been talking the United States on an official level does not like to negotiate with terrorists. Of course as Paul correctly points out, there have been deals for prisoners before.

How do you think the U.S. officially and the State Department is looking at this right now?

JAMES RUBIN, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: We obviously have very close relationships with both Jordan and Japan. They are both extremely close allies of the United States, so I guess in diplomatic terms we feel their pain.

But, as you point out, the idea of taking a step that might encourage further hostage taking, that might encourage ISIS to believe that every time they take someone they can get one of their prisoners out is not good news.

But let's face it. This is a pretty unique situation where everyone's interests do align, and that's why it seems to plausible in that the woman terrorist in prison is apparently a relation of one of the original founders of Islamic al-Qaeda in Iraq, and you have very prominent Japanese journalist, and then you have Jordan looking out for its pilot the way any country would.

So these are unique situations, and they may not ever come again where you can have a tribe in the region to negotiate on behalf of Jordan and be able to talk to both sides.

ISIS is not going to be involved in a lot of trades even if this comes through, but it's not something the United States would want to encourage, no.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely not. And you do -- you make a good point. This is a unique circumstance.

But this unique circumstance is great, huge propaganda -- huge, great propaganda for ISIS. And if it's unique now, it may not be so unique in the future, because if it works this time, it might work again and that's going to be what ISIS is trying for, to get more hostages to make more swap.

This is a great recruiting tool for them, Jamie (ph). Do you think the United States -- even though this is a unique situation, do you think the U.S. has to speak out against what is potentially going to happen, the swap?

RUBIN: Well, let me give you an analogy, and I'm sure someone will hate this analogy. But when Israel loses one soldier to a terrorist group in the Middle East, and that's happened a lot where they have been taken hostage, and hundreds of Palestinian or other prisoners are often swapped for that one Israeli soldier, we don't criticize that because we understand that each country, each of our allies, has to make tough choices about what they will do for their soldiers and their people.

Since our soldiers and our people are not directly involved, I'd be stunned if the United States were to criticize either a close ally like Jordan or perhaps our closest ally in Asia, Japan.

BOLDUAN: Amazing, the circumstance that we're even talking about right now, the fact that this prisoner swap could happen between Jordan and ISIS and what does that mean for the fate of the Japanese hostage?

A lot of things to consider and to be following through the day. Jamie (ph) Rubin, Paul Cruickshank, thank you both so much.

BERMAN: It could happen very soon, by the way.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely.

BERMAN: So stay with us for developments on this, because it could come down any minute.

Also happening right now, tensions flaring in one of the world's most dangerous hot spots, evacuations under way in the Israeli region of the Golan Heights. This comes after the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah claimed responsibility for firing a missile on an Israeli military vehicle. Officials say that two Israeli soldiers were killed, seven others injured in that attack. Overnight Israel launched several air strikes in response. This latest round of fighting comes more than a week after an Israeli air strike killed six members of Hezbollah, not to mention, by the way, an Iranian general who was working alongside them.

In just a few minutes, we're going to speak to former senator and Mideast peace negotiator George Mitchell who has vast experience in that region. This could flare-up very quickly, folks, a very dangerous border.

BOLDUAN: Also coming up for us, we're going to be getting back to the crazy situation on the East Coast. The blizzard, it may be over, but the damage remains. We're going take you to one of the hardest hit areas to see how they're cleaning up today.

BERMAN: And, later, was the first lady sending a message to Saudi Arabia by not wearing a head scarf on her visit to that country? Or was it some kind of protocol faux pas or neither? That debate ahead at this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: Tensions rising at this very hour in the Middle East, two Israeli soldiers have been killed, according to the Israeli military, along with a U.N. peace keeper in a missile attack in the area of the Lebanon-Syria border and the Golan Heights.

BERMAN: Hezbollah is claiming responsibility for this attack.

We want to bring in CNN global affairs correspondent Elise Labott, and also with us in studio, former senator George Mitchell, also the former U.S. special envoy to the Middle East. Thank you so much, both, for being with us.

Elise, I just want to start with you on the ground there on the border between Israel and Lebanon, what is the latest?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, the latest, John, is it's been quiet for the last few hours but started this morning with that anti-tank missile fire from the Lebanon area of Shebaa farms into Israel, hitting an Israeli military convoy. Two soldiers were killed, seven wounded.

Israel responded with air strikes and with artillery fire into that Shebaa farms area in Lebanon.

Israeli prime minister blaming not only the Hezbollah and the Lebanese government, because obviously they are firing from Lebanon but also Iran, John, saying that Iran is responsible and really referring to those nuclear negotiations right now, saying that Iran can't be allowed to have a nuclear umbrella to continue its terror in the region, John.

BOLDUAN: Elise on -- in the region for us, Elise, thank you very much.

Let's get kind of the latest here with Senator George Mitchell. Senator, it's so great to have you here. You're an expert, especially in this area.

This is the latest in a string or a series of confrontations in this northern region. What do you make of it? Why is this flaring up now?

GEORGE MITCHELL, PARTNER AND CHAIR EMERITUS, DLA PIPER: Well, I think it's particularly risky and dangerous now because there are so many intersecting and overlapping conflicts in the entire region that no one can know how this might spiral into a much broader conflict, dragging in and maybe combining separate fires that are now burning into one large conflagration. So I think it's particularly important that all sides exercise restraint to the degree possible. This has been going on for several days, of course, back and forth.

Hezbollah is taking a huge risk in doing this. Their rationale for maintaining a large militia force in Lebanon has been to defend against Israel. They've now undermined that rationale by extending themselves into Syria in behalf of the Assad government, a benefactor of theirs, along with Iran. If they drag this region into a broader conflict, I think it will have a severe adverse effect on them. They are already stretched thin in Syria. I think for Israel, the last thing it needs is overt conflict on any of its borders because it faces a still difficult situation with Hamas on the southern border, Hezbollah and Syria on the --

BOLDUAN: That's the last time I remember you and I were speaking about that conflict that they were involved in.

BERMAN: And this one is vastly different. You have a border here with Hezbollah heavily militarized, whose goal - is the battle Israel and has been arming for it for years and years. There is a conflict in 2006 between Hezbollah and Israel. I think like 1,000 Lebanese died or Hezbollah fighters. And more than 100 Israelis died there, too. So there is a risk for Israelis, as well. And you would think that Hezbollah has been doing nothing but arm themselves along that border since that conflict in 2006. Do you think Israel is prepared for the kind of hot war with ground troops and air strikes we saw in 2006?

MITCHELL: I think Israel is very much prepared militarily. Israel is dominant militarily in the region. The danger is the threat, not so much from direct clashes on the border, but from rocket and missile attacks. Published reports in Israel, not to mention nonpublic, are that Hezbollah possesses about 30,000 to 50,000 rockets placed along the northern Israeli border. They are more accurate and more destructive than the crude arsenal that Hamas has and less accurate than the arsenal that Iran has, but does pose a serious threat to the safety and security of the people of Israel for which the government of Israel, of course, is very deeply concerned. So I think a full outbreak of violence there combined with the hair trigger situation that exists throughout the region is a very dangerous and risky thing for all concerned.

BOLDUAN: You talk about for all concerned. You are the former Mid East envoy. You know the conversations that occur and the role the United States has played in Middle East peace talks in the past. Does the United States have a role here in this immediate trading of fire?

BERMAN: Especially given the tension right now between this president and the current Prime Minister of Israel.

BOLDUAN: Excellent point, John.

MITCHELL: Yes, the fact is that we do have a role. We're close allies with Israel. We also have a close relationship with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, with United Arab Emirates, with many other countries in the region. They look to the United States, despite their frequent static and criticism back and forth. The reality is they all look to the United States as the world's dominant power to maintain both a presence and hopefully a calming and reassuring --

BOLDUAN: Do you expect to hear the president speak out or the secretary of state to speak out?

MITCHELL: I expect both of them will address themselves to the subject. I'm quite certain that both of them have been in discussions with leaders in the region. Of course, we don't recognize Hezbollah. We don't have direct contact with them. We do have contact with the Lebanese government. We have contact, of course, with Israelis and Jordanians and I'm sure that the administration is urging restraint on all sides.

BERMAN: Senator George Mitchell, a dangerous moment. Thank you for being with us.

BOLDUAN: Thank you, Senator.

BERMAN: Coming up for us, he left his post in Afghanistan, but will the U.S. army call it desertion? On the verge of a decision about former Taliban hostage Bowe Bergdahl. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: A decision on the future for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl will be announced in the coming days. It's expected. And that's really the bottom line from the Pentagon. You'll recall Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban after leaving his post in Afghanistan. He was then held for five years before the Obama administration made a deal for Bergdahl in exchange for five Guantanamo Bay detainees last year.

BERMAN: Officials are denying reports that they have already decided that Bergdahl should be charged with desertion. Let's bring in our Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, also retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, our military analyst. Barbara, let me start with you. What do we know about the timing at this point?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, Kate, good morning. The Pentagon is adamant that no decision has been made and that there's no timeline for making a decision. It will happen when it happens, officials say. Behind the scenes, they are getting closer. The general in charge of looking at the investigation has had the report for some time now. The facts basically are the facts. They have not changed. He has wide latitude in deciding what he wants to do. It could range from Bergdahl going free from any charge, any discipline, all of the way to making a very serious charge of desertion with him potentially facing a court-martial proceeding. I think the bottom line is the Pentagon, most officials say, and they

pretty much hope it doesn't go to a full trial. They say nobody wants to see it. But he is going to have to be held accountable, they say, for leaving his post.

BOLDUAN: General, I want to get your take on what Barbara is talking about. The range of possibility that Bergdahl could face and the fact that she's hearing that folks in the Pentagon don't want to see it go to a full trial. What do you think the middle ground could be then?

LT. GENERAL MARK HERTLING (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: First, if I can explain and Barbara is laying it out well, but if I can explain the only people that can decide what happens is an individual who holds the responsibility of what we call a general court-martial convening authority. General Milley, a four-star general who is in charge of FORSCOM, has that responsibility and it will be based on what the investigating officer, a guy named General Ken Dahl, provided as information.

So General Milley is checking that information and seeing what kind of recommendation General Dahl has provided in terms of potential crime that's been committed or not and then he really has three choices. He can allow the individual to go free because there is not enough evidence to go to trial, he can give them a lesser degree of discipline, like what we call an Article 15 procedure, and it's more of an administrative procedure, or he can go to court-martial. And in this case, it would be a general court-martial because it's a general deciding it. In a general court-martial for desertion, if that's what the investigation shows, that sergeant Bergdahl did, the punishments range -- and that will occur after the court-martial trial -- The punishments range from whatever the judge decide with a maximum punishment of death for desertion in a combat environment.

BERMAN: General, what will this decision be based on? Where will they hang their decision per se? Might it be on whether or not they determine that sergeant Bergdahl intended to return to the post, as in when he walked off, he planned to walk off forever and perhaps go find the Taliban?

HERTLING: That's exactly what's in this investigative report. It's called an Article 32 investigation. What General Dahl has provided is interview with probably a hundred people or more that all have -- to include Sergeant Bergdahl himself -- about what happened that night. Was sergeant Bergdahl planning on leaving for a few hours and then returning? Did he leave and get captured? Was it what we would call AWOL, absent without leave? Or was his intent or indication of the intent to truly desert forever and ever, amen?

All of those things have been what's been determined in the initial investigation and then that will be put before the trial if one is decided to have happen. And the only person who can decide if it goes to trial is General Milley, the FORSCOM Commander. The Department of Defense back in Washington is saying, hey, we've given this to the GCMCA, he is the one that has to decide this and we can't interfere with that because then you are impinging on that trial procedure. BERMAN: Does seem that the decision, as Barbara is reporting, is

imminent or at least pretty soon. Barbara Starr, Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, thank you for being with us. Appreciate it.

BOLDUAN: Thanks, you guys. Coming up for us, it left behind record breaking amounts of snow. You probably know it. You probably see it out your front door. Now the blizzard has moved on and the cleanup has begun in the Northeast. We'll go live to a place that took one of the storm's hardest hits.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)