Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

U.K. Raises Terror Threat Level; Pentagon Press Conference; An Interview with a Former Islamic Extremist; Laptop of Doom Found

Aired August 29, 2014 - 12:30   ET

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

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: We have conducted nearly 110 and -- and maybe 110, but by the time I'm talking to you -- air strikes inside Iraq.

So, believe me, this building and the United States military shares the same sense of urgency over the situation in Iraq and the threat that ISIL poses. There's no -- there's no doubt or debate about that. And when the secretary talked about them being like nothing we've ever seen, some people have taken that to mean in terms of size and scale of a homeland attack. What he was referring to is that this is a group that doesn't behave like any other terrorist group we've had to deal with before.

They're not -- they're not simply killing, murdering and maiming. They're grabbing ground and infrastructure and trying to develop streams of revenue.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: Now, wait, I'm getting there. I've just got to get warmed up here. The...

(LAUGHTER)

But -- but we all share the same sense of urgency. When the president spoke about exploring further planning options, he was referring to the potential for military options inside Syria, which we haven't done, and we are working on those kinds of options for him. We have -- we have been. So that's a...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) my specific question, right there, why are you not yet ready with military options for Syria? Why is the president still waiting? Why are you not ready, given everything that Secretary Hagel...

KIRBY: Planning is an iterative process, Barb. It's not like -- you know, the question is -- assumes this is some sort of binary thing, where, you know, we get ordered to do it and here's the binder and, boom, there you go, and it's on your -- you know, we got it turned into you on your due date.

It's an iterative process, because the situation on the ground constantly changes. It's very fluid. And we're -- you know, you do military planning in real time, especially in a situation like what's going on in Iraq and in that region, because ISIL changes over time. The threat changes other time. It's not -- it's not like we haven't worked on this. We have worked on this. We continue to work on it.

And planners down in Tampa and planners here in the Pentagon continually refine and change and update planning options for potential military activity. It is an ongoing effort. And when we are -- when we as a government -- wait -- when we as a government are ready to have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.

QUESTION: Why should ISIS think anything other than you're just not ready? Why should ISIS take any message away from everything that's been said in Washington for the last two days from the White House to here?

KIRBY: Why don't you ask some of the ones that are getting hit from the sky...

QUESTION: In Syria...

KIRBY: ... about how seriously we're taking the threat?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) in Syria, why should ISIS think you're anything but not ready to deal with them?

KIRBY: I think that anybody who has had any knowledge of the United States military knows that we're ready, we're ready all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean that the planning process is complete or that decisions to do anything have been made, but that -- that we are ready shouldn't be in doubt by nobody, nobody, our friends, our enemies, our potential adversaries.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) follow (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the Pentagon on the same page as the White House in terms of the threat posed by ISIS?

KIRBY: Yes. Next question?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) this one a little bit more. You -- so if the Pentagon has been constantly planning for this, then presumably if the president or the White House or national security staff said that they wanted plans presented today or last night at the meeting yesterday afternoon, the Pentagon would have had something ready to go. And then you said that once you're ready for this meeting or ready for this long discussion, once, you know, the administration is ready for the discussion, I mean, is there someone in the administration who's not quite ready for this discussion to happen yet about the potential plans?

Because it sounds as if -- I mean, just from what you just said to Barbara, it sounds as if you guys have plans that are ready that are changing every single day, but you're not ready to have the discussion. Someone's not ready yet. Who is that?

KIRBY: This has got to be an interagency discussion, Court. It's not -- you know, you're asking me an impossible question to answer. We continue to plan and prepare. And I would tell you that the Syria component here is a relatively new one. I mean, this -- this -- the thought process of potentially going into -- you know, doing military airstrikes into Syria is a relatively new one. So it's not like we've been doing that for months.

We've been watching ISIL for months. We certainly have done a bit of planning and execution inside Iraq, but the Syria component is relatively new. We continue to refine and work on options. That's our job. But that doesn't mean that, you know, that while you have planners doing it at a low level, that you're ready at a high level to sit down and examine them in great detail. And we just aren't there yet as an interagency team.

I wouldn't -- you know, I wouldn't begin to, you know, try to peg it down to an individual here. The way it works is, the commander-in- chief gets to make the decisions. He's the one who sets the policy. He's the one who determines how and when, you know, a military option is going to be pursued. Our job is to be ready to provide him options. That's what we do. We give him options and choices, because those are his decisions to make and they can be very, very difficult. We have to think it through, make sure that the pros and the cons are all there for him to make a decision, and so that when a decision is made, we're ready to execute.

QUESTION: Can I ask about another iterative process that we haven't asked about today?

KIRBY: Absolutely.

QUESTION: The assessment. Would -- did the assessments ever make it to the White House about Iraq? I think Secretary Hagel got them on July 15th, if I'm not mistaken.

KIRBY: Yes, they did.

QUESTION: When was that?

KIRBY: I'd have to go back and -- I mean, I don't know if I have a date certain there, Court. But, I mean, yes, there was -- they were certainly shared with White House officials, absolutely.

QUESTION: So what's been the outcome of that? Is that why we started to see airstrikes in Iraq?

KIRBY: Without getting into too much detail about the assessments -- they remain classified -- I can tell you they certainly have helped inform the activities that we've been conducting inside Iraq. There's no question about that. They've helped inform and helped us make better decisions about the kinds of things that we're doing in Iraq, yes.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

(CROSSTALK) KIRBY: Julian?

QUESTION: Could you tell us what the current situation of the humanitarian situation in Amerli is with the Turkmen? And in a related way, have we seen an uptick in operations in Iraq over the last 24 or 48 hours, in terms of the pace of bombs? Or is it steady...

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: An uptick in our operations?

QUESTION: Yeah, your operations.

KIRBY: Well, on -- and I think this is how you pronounce it, "Amerli" -- I'm not an expert -- but we continue to monitor the situation there, as we do throughout Iraq. I mean, one of -- as you know, one of the missions we've been assigned inside Iraq from a military perspective is to contribute to humanitarian support as needed and at the request of the Iraqi government. We continue to monitor the whole country in that regard. And this township of Amerli, I don't have anything to announce today, in terms of any decisions made about that. Whatever we do from a humanitarian perspective in Iraq will be done in partnership with Iraqi security forces and Kurdish forces as necessary.

So I have no updates there. I'm not quite certain I have anything for you on the intensification. There's been a consistent level of military activity inside Iraq, not just from us, but from our Iraqi partners. As I said, I think we're up to nearly, if not at 110 airstrikes total since they started. And I don't know that -- I mean, I haven't watched the pace of those, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's, you know, seriously upticked in recent days.

And most of the strikes -- by the way, I mean, if you just do the math -- and, actually, I think I have it here. You know, of the nearly 110, the majority of them have been done in and around the Mosul dam facility, because, again, back to my point about these guys, they want infrastructure. They want streams of revenue. They want ground, and they still are going after that Mosul dam facility, so we still have to keep -- we still have to keep the pressure on them. John?

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: Hang on just a second. John?

QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, is this -- was this request for Syria options from the White House something that was given to you just in the past couple days? Is it something that is just newly being considered? And also...

KIRBY: No. Not at all, John. No. I mean, this is -- the exploration of options inside Syria is -- as I told Courtney -- is a relatively new facet of this. But the discussion is not just in the last 24 hours or couple of days, no. QUESTION: And can you elaborate a little bit on the advise and assist activities that the guys in the JOCs are doing? Are they developing operational plans for the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga to take on ISIL on the ground?

KIRBY: I don't believe they're writing operational plans for the Iraqi military, John, but your question is better posed to Central Command. They have a much more -- higher degree of fidelity about what these guys are actually doing. I do know that in the joint operations centers, there is an advise and assist capacity to that. There's a component to that. But they are providing some advice and assistance to Iraqi and Kurdish forces through their presence in the joint operations center.

QUESTION: Major General Dana Pittard was appointed more than two months ago to head this Iraq effort. We haven't heard from him. Any chance that he can brief us on how things look in Iraq?

KIRBY: You're not satisfied with my briefing style?

QUESTION: You're doing a great job, but...

KIRBY: Yeah, nice try.

QUESTION: Since he is the point man on Iraq, any chance we can hear from him or get briefed by him?

KIRBY: I'll have to take that. I don't know, Tom.

QUESTION: He's not kept under wraps, is he?

KIRBY: I don't want to share the podium with anybody. It's all about me.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, I'm trying to preserve my own job here, so -- no, I -- I'll take it. I'll take it, Tom. I don't know. Yeah. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, on the Mosul dam, just to go back to that, why are there so many strikes still there after we were told that the dam was retaken by Kurdish forces?

KIRBY: Because ISIL keeps wanting to take it back. They keep threatening the dam and the facility. And as long as they pose a threat to that facility, we are going to continue to help Iraqi security forces preserve their ownership of it.

QUESTION: But are Kurdish forces or Iraqi forces struggling to keep hold of it, to maintain control of it?

KIRBY: They're still under attack almost every day there at the facility. There's a reason that -- and that's reason enough. I think that shows you just how important it was for us to help them get it back, that ISIL continues to pose a threat around that facility.

And you guys know this. It's -- you know, we talk about the Mosul dam, everybody thinks about the dam itself. It's a huge facility covering a wide, wide area, because it's not just about the river itself and the actual dam. And so they're -- they continue to threaten it. As long as they continue to threaten it, we're going to continue to hit them.

QUESTION: Has there been a request from Baghdad on the Amerli situation for a humanitarian mission or U.S. action?

KIRBY: I'm not aware of a specific request from the Iraqi government for that particular mission. That said, you know, we're watching it constantly. And nobody's taken our eye off of that -- off of that township and the struggles in that township, and, you know, if we get to that point, we'll certainly share as much with you as we can on it.

QUESTION: My name is (inaudible) I'm with (inaudible) Kurdistan 24-hour news channel. Thank you. It's my first time here.

KIRBY: Welcome.

QUESTION: Thank you.

KIRBY: Picked a great time to come.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I have a few questions -- a couple questions about Kurdish people in Iraq and in Syria, as well, as you're considering to expanding your attacks to Syria. First of all, about the weapons that you and at least seven of your allies have provided to the Peshmerga forces, are they military aid or you sell them?

KIRBY: The military aid and assistance going to Kurdish forces?

QUESTION: Do they buy it from you? Or are they just free military aid?

KIRBY: I think we're -- right now, the assistance -- the direct military assistance that's going to Kurdish forces is coming from the Iraqi government.

QUESTION: But you (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: We are helping the Iraqi government transport it, but it's not coming directly from the United States. It's coming from the Iraqi government. And as I said earlier this week, there are other nations, some seven now, that have signed up to provide materiel assistance to the Kurdish forces. And I'll let those countries speak for how they're doing it and under what rubric.

Right now, for the United States, our role is principally in helping transport, logistically get the stuff to the Kurdish forces. There's been no decision to directly arm the Kurds from American stockpiles.

QUESTION: On Syrian Kurds, we know there's a group there, the most powerful militant group called PYD, and it's widely regarded as an offshoot of the PKK, which you designate as a terrorist group. Does that inhibit you from cooperating with the PYD, as the strongest -- single most strongest force in northern Syria to fight ISIS? Because they are really determined and they're willing to fight.

KIRBY: I don't honestly have anything for you on that. I really -- I don't have...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Peshmerga yesterday. ISIS has held 15 Peshmergas, and they showed a video, just like James Foley's video. They said that there was a message to the Kurdish government to end its alliance with the United States. Do you see that as a warning to America, as well, to end its airstrikes?

KIRBY: I think ISIL poses a threat to -- as we said, to not just the people of Iraq, but to the region. And we all take -- we're all taking that threat very seriously. But if they think that by further violence they're going to somehow weaken our resolve or the resolve of our Iraqi and Kurdish partners, I think they're sadly mistaken. And you can see that every day, every single day.

Gordon?

QUESTION: Admiral (OFF-MIKE) ISIS is a threat to the region. You don't think ISIS is a threat to the United States?

KIRBY: We've long talked about the threat that they pose to the region and the potential threat -- the very real potential threat that they could pose to Western governments and to the homeland. Right now, they've got global aspirations, and they certainly have aspirations to strike Western targets. And I've said this before, and say again today. We don't believe they have the capacity right now, the capability to conduct a major attack on the homeland.

But one of the things -- and when we talk about the immediacy of the threat, one of the things that we're talking about is this threat of foreign fighters, this idea that people will go over there from -- you pick the country, they'll get radicalized, they'll get trained, and there's a potential for them to come right on back home and conduct terrorist attacks, maybe small-scale, on the homeland.

So that threat's very real. And we take that very seriously. And I think you're seeing that from other governments, as well.

QUESTION: And just to clear up, have you given the White House an initial strategy on dealing with the threat of ISIS in Syria?

KIRBY: Well, this gets to the whole conversation that we've had. I mean, the -- we continue to plan and prepare for the potential of military action inside Syria. A more fulsome discussion of those plans has not occurred.

QUESTION: OK. And one final one. You said that you're looking at a comprehensive approach, strategy to deal with ISIS in Syria. How many nations have pledged support to help the United States conduct airstrikes against ISIS in Syria? KIRBY: We're the only nation, in addition to the Iraqis, you know, that are working on -- from an airstrike perspective inside Iraq that are conducting airstrikes. I won't talk about deliberations or diplomatic discussions with other countries. The other thing that we've said, in terms of airstrikes, the other thing that -- and I've talked about this -- is that many nations have come forward to offer to assist and have assisted with humanitarian missions, like the Brits.

QUESTION: And what about Syria?

KIRBY: We're not having discussions with the Assad regime about our operations in Iraq.

QUESTION: And have other nations pledged their help and support with -- to the United States to conduct airstrikes inside Syria?

KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such pledge. And I would remind you that we haven't made a decision to conduct airstrikes inside Syria.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) coalition together?

KIRBY: We have -- we have made pledges. What we've said is, as a government -- and certainly the Pentagon supports this effort -- that we -- that we want a coalition of the willing, we want -- we want to seek partners in this effort. We have partners in this effort. And when you work on a coalition of the willing like that, everybody is encouraged to bring what they can and what they're willing to.

They all have domestic -- you know, domestic legislative issues they have to deal with. They all -- every country has to decide for themselves in accordance with the wishes of their people what they're willing to do. But it's not about us mandating it or pledging it. It's about us pledging to continue that effort of building a coalition.

QUESTION: Can you name some of those countries that have pledged their support?

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: I think you're getting -- I think you're getting stifled. Gordon.

QUESTION: Just (OFF-MIKE) stuff, can you kind of square the task force the secretary kind of loosely assembled and what they're doing, what maybe timeframe they have, what the hurdles may be to providing assistance directly to the Kurdish forces, and how all this is tied to the strategy question, the broader strategy question? Does -- are those two separate things? Or does that assistance issue generally...

KIRBY: No, no, it's tied in. I mean, the -- one of the things that we've said we're trying to do inside Iraq is to assists the Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, and the Kurdish forces in combating this threat inside their country, because -- and I've said it time and again -- this is ultimately a fight they have to -- they have to win.

And we're willing to help them. That's all part of the mission set inside Iraq. So as part of that, as they expend arms and ammunition and they expend their military capacity, you want to help boost that.

What we've done so far as a country, as a military, is to help the Iraqi government support and supply the Kurds. There are other nations that have come on -- and Secretary Hagel did stand up a task force, a U.S.-led effort, to try to encourage and solicit support from other nations to do the same, to supply -- help resupply Kurdish forces in particular, because that's where the bulk of the fighting is right now. Most of the active expenditure of rounds is happening in the north.

And we have had now seven nations that have signed up. I read this out last week, the seven nations that have signed up to do this, the most recent being Albania. And some of that's even more effective anyway, because some of those countries actually possess the kinds of arms and ammunition and materiel that the Kurds need, which we don't necessarily have in American stockpiles. So it's mutually beneficial.

QUESTION: Will there be more -- I mean, could we anticipate that, you know, the U.S. would begin to provide much more visibly -- because we don't see it necessarily a lot of what exactly's being provided -- once this strategy is decided upon, in other words -- or do you really have to wait for the strategy question to be answered before the (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: The strategy question you're talking about is regarding the potential for military action inside Syria. That is a separate question from what I think you're getting at, which is helping Kurdish forces with the very real, daily threat that they face, and that effort's ongoing now, and we continue to look for willing partners to do that. I don't know if that got you or not.

Maggie? OK.

QUESTION: I almost called you General. Admiral, OK...

KIRBY: Really, you guys are trying to run me out on a rail here. QUESTION: Sorry about that. So you mentioned just like a couple of minutes ago that it was going to be about $7.5 million per day for the Iraqi operation.

KIRBY: What I said was the average since the beginning is roughly $7.5 million per day.

QUESTION: That's the average. This morning, General, General Jean Paul Pulmeris (ph), he said that he expected the Baltic policing exercises to continue at the tempo that they're continuing in because of some of the threat that Russia poses. Now, some of the military aircraft, U.S. military aircraft are using these exercises. I'm wondering what the budget concern is for the Pentagon, given that you've got a pricey Iraq operation, a continuing exercising operation in Eastern Europe, and last year, it was at the point where you guys were canceling training exercises and putting folks on furlough. So what's the -- what's the concern and what's the plan?

KIRBY: Well, we're always concerned about having, you know, enough funds and resources to accomplish the mission around the world. As I said, we're able to fund and resource the operations in Iraq out of existing overseas contingency operations funds. We're well within our limit there, and we're not concerned about it for '14. As the secretary said himself, once you get into '15, if we're still involved at this level or a higher level, then we've got to have another discussion about what the funding levels might be.

Your question seems to make it sound like, you know, we were worried before and we're not worried now. We're still worried. I mean, sequestration remains the law of the land. We've got a funding request up on the Hill that meets the BBA, the Budget Control Act, limits, but -- and, you know, we've got sort of a stay of execution for '14 and '15. But beyond that, sequestration come '16 will revert and, you know, become again the law of the land, and that's a very real concern going forward. But right now, in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, we've got resources sufficient to the military tasks that we're accomplishing.

I've got time for just one more. I've been up here a while. Yes, sir?

QUESTION: Regarding the operations in Iraq, do you have a breakdown of the cost of between airstrikes, ISR, and humanitarian aid?

KIRBY: (OFF-MIKE) Phil?

QUESTION: Admiral, you said in answer to Tom's question earlier that you're hitting what you're aiming at in Iraq. You're having an effect on ISIL there and hitting headquarters and other targets that appear to be beyond what you said before. When you characterized this as kind of a defensive mission to protect Americans, protect the dam, protect the Kurds, has the mission in Iraq changed to one of more of an offensive nature, where you're actively going after ISIL support structures, commanders? Or does that depend on the new strategy the president's... (CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: Look, I don't -- I don't see any change in the types of targets we're hitting. There's been no -- there's been -- and there certainly has been no change in the mission. It remains exactly the same.

QUESTION: So today, it's still the limited mission that you talked about before?

KIRBY: Absolutely it is. And the targets that we're hitting are all in keeping with the authorizations that we have to use force inside Iraq. There's been no change at all.

Last one. QUESTION: Congress, the president yesterday seemed to be saying that -- to assuaging fears of the members of Congress (OFF-MIKE) was going to move ahead without them when they were in recess. Can you characterize (OFF-MIKE) specific, what kind of -- or what level of concern that the secretary has heard from members of Congress? And has he been engaged with them (OFF-MIKE) does he feel...

KIRBY: We continue to have -- we've continued to have consultations with members of Congress throughout this. Just because they're out doesn't mean we're not talking to them and trying to keep them informed. We're doing that, and that will continue. And I think the president was very clear yesterday about the -- the need to engage the Congress in any major future decisions, as well, by default, of the American people, and that will continue.

There's -- and the secretary has personally -- you know, and I won't detail every phone call and meeting he's had, but he certainly has -- has personally taken on that job of keeping members of Congress as informed as he possibly can. And as a former senator, he well understands their oversight responsibilities and their role in that regard, and he fully respects it.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) those fears or is there -- you know, is the real concern, like we heard earlier in the week?

KIRBY: The fears of members of Congress...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) change, is it OK, you know (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: I would -- I'm not going to...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) battle with the Hill (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: I can't speak for Congress or their concerns. It often depends on each member sometimes. What I can tell you is, the secretary remains committed to keeping them informed. He has kept them informed. He'll continue to do that. He certainly understands the need to make sure that the Congress is fully engaged, and he takes those responsibilities very seriously.

Thanks, everybody. Have a great Labor Day.

QUESTION: You, too.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: And as we continue to follow the press secretary, the rear admiral, John Kirby, at the Pentagon, relentlessly being asked by our own Barbara Starr what is taking so long in terms of the Pentagon presenting the president with these so-called options for action against ISIS inside Syria.

The rear admiral, quite clear about it, or perhaps not quite clear about it, depending on how you look at it, that is that it is an iterative process, meaning things change on the ground; it's fluid on the ground.

And he also stated to our Barbara Starr that that suggests that there's nothing going on currently, although they certainly aren't making clear what is currently ongoing in terms of American actions in Syria, focusing instead on what American actions are inside Iraq to counter ISIS threats and, as the president said, to degrade their capability.

But there's so much nuance in these statement, clearly with ISIS ramping up its threat and clearly holding American hostages as well.

We're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we're going to take you to Baghdad, a lot of analysis not only on what's happening with ISIS and Syria and Iraq but also what's happening in Ukraine and how the Russians seem to be downplaying all of it, if not denying it, outright.

Back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: And our breaking news, today, for the first time in three years, the government of Britain today bumped up its terror threat level from substantial -- the third-highest mark -- to severe, meaning an attack is, quote, "highly likely."

British Prime Minister David Cameron made the announcement himself and laid out the reasons behind doing so.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CAMERON, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We've all been shocked and sickened by the barbaric murder of American journalist James Foley and by the voice of what increasingly seems to have been a British terrorist recorded on that video.

It was clear evidence, not that anymore was needed, that this is not some foreign conflict thousands of miles from home that we can hope to ignore. The ambition to create an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is the threat to our own security here in the U.K.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Well, as you may know, the United States retired its color- coded threat scale a few years back, but right now, the National Terrorism Advisory System is posting no active alerts.

The Department of Homeland Security, however, just issued a statement on the U.K.'s decision to raise the threat level.

Our CNN aviation correspondent Rene Marsh joins me live now from Washington. I feel like we were getting some mixed messages today, and maybe you can clear this up.

The TSA earlier suggesting there's really been no change, but then the Department of Homeland Security coming out and I'm not sure if it's nuanced but suggesting, you know, things definitely are different.

How are they different? What's happening? RENE MARSH, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: The TSA earlier today,

Ashleigh, told us from their point of view and from their security posture, things remained business of usual.

Of course, as we go into the holiday travel weekend, we know that there's going to be an increased presence of security. That is normal.

I think what we're seeing here, so far, we know that here in the United States the threat level has not been raised. And that's pretty much what the Department of Homeland Security is saying at this point in their statement.

That being said, they went to flesh out what we do know, and so far, the Department of Homeland Security in their statement just a short time ago said that they have no specific credible threat that there's any direct threat to the United States homeland from ISIL.

They went on to say -- this is only in part from their statement here -- that the Department of Homeland Security over the past several weeks has taken a number of steps to enhance aviation security at overseas airports with direct flights to the United States.

But if you remember, back in July, where we did this story about people who may be flying from overseas and coming on flights to the United States, if you weren't able to power up your cell phone or your mobile device, you were not going to be able to take that device on to the flight. The reason for that is because they were receiving intelligence some of these terror groups were looking for new ways to create bombs.

We do want to point out that that is still in place. That was put in place in July, still in effect, and that is what DHS is talking about in this statement here about steps they've already taken in the past couple of weeks.

Ashleigh?

BANFIELD: Well, and this other little part of the security statement that some of the security measures will be visible to the public and others, understandably, will be unseen, it certainly makes for a fascinating conversation.

Rene Marsh, thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Well, some jihadists die fighting for their cause. Some take a very different path, and my next guest followed the path of an Islamic fighter and even recruited others to fight, and then ultimately rejected it, rejected all of the radical teaching.

How did he get into it in the first place? And how did he shake it off? His story is coming up, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The number of people who have fled Syria and registered as refugees amid that country's civil war is about to surpass 3 million people today. And that's according to the United Nations refugee agency. And if you actually put that in a relative scale, it is half of all Syrians. Half.

ISIS has captured large swaths of northern and eastern Syria for what it says is the new Islamic Caliphate.

In the meantime, "The Washington Post" reported citing unnamed sources familiar with the treatment of abducted westerners, that at least four hostages held in Syria by ISIS were water boarded. And that includes the person on your screen, journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by ISIS.

ISIS says it executed at least 250 Syrian soldiers Wednesday at an air base in the northeastern city of Raqqah. You can see these images that ISIS posted online saying that it shows the soldiers being paraded through the desert. You can see that they're all in their underwear and they are apparently walking to their executions. CNN cannot independently confirm the claims or the authenticity of these videos.

I want to turn now to some other developments in the battle against ISIS. You remember the Fort Hood soldier, Nidal Hasan, who shot up Fort Hood? He has now said he apparently wants to join the Islamic extremist group. Nidal Hasan's lawyer provided Fox News a copy of the letter that Hasan wrote to the leader of ISIS, and in it Hasan says, quote, "I formally and humbly request to be made a citizen of the Islamic state. It would be an honor for any believer to be an obedient citizen soldier to a people and its leader who don't compromise the religion of Almighty Allah to get along with the disbelievers." And Hasan signed the letter with his name and the abbreviation S.O.A., meaning "soldier of Allah."

We're also learning a whole lot more about another American killed fighting alongside of ISIS. The family of Abd Rahman Mohamed says he was killed over the weekend in Syria. Friends of the Minnesota father of nine are trying to figure out what caused him to join the fight and travel there.

America's not the only country where ISIS is recruiting its soldiers either. The CBC in Canada reports that these two brothers from Calgary have joined the Islamic extremist group. They are Gregory and Collin Gordon, and they are believed to be fighting in Syria. The brother's parents have told the CBC that they are deeply concerned for the safety of their children.

And as the ISIS threat increases in the Middle East and elsewhere, fears of home grown terror right here in America also growing. The FBI scrambling to track down potential jihadi recruits after reports of more Americans joining extremist groups. And joining us right now is a former jihadist who was recruited in Canada to join the fight and then recruited others himself. Mubin Shaikh is now a securities operative.

Thank you so much for joining us. Can I just ask you, when I read about you, I was sort of alarmed to see that as you were growing up, you were sort of living a very American life, that you were befriending cheerleaders and that you were quite happy. So how did anything change so drastically that you yourself would become a jihadist?

MUBIN SHAIKH, FORMER JIHADIST: First of all, thank you for having me.

I think one thing that we need to be aware of is that we may - we may think the person is integrated, it may appear so from the outside, but internally the person is undergoing serious identity conflicts. And that's exactly what was happening with me. So as you describe it, a very cliche life, but inside I was torn as to which side am I supposed to be on, you know, does being western mean I'm necessarily not Muslim? So these were the conflicts that were happening inside me, which kind of pointed me into the direction of extremist thinking.

BANFIELD: So I can understand the philosophical, you know, questions that you might have, which side am I on. But what I can't understand is the violence and the hatred because, as you yourself have mentioned in former interviews and writings, you were never discriminated against. There was really nothing for you to hate about your life and the people that you grew up with and your fellow citizens. So how could you have - how could you have developed enough hate to want to kill the people that were effectively your fellow citizens?

SHAIKH: So, for me, the direction that I took, the violence came a little bit later. You know, the profile for an individual is different across the board. For some people, they begin with ideology and they -- then they get into violence. For some, they start off with a violence predisposition. It could be because they grew up in an abusive household. They have a pre-criminal or a criminal background. And then they tack on the ideology to justify what they're already predisposed to.

For me, and like you said, I didn't have a reason, or so I thought. And when I eventually had this identity conflict beyond the normal philosophical questions, there was a focus. So, for me, it was, I had to become religious. I have to become very religious because I had been living a very irreligious life. And that was OK because the group that I had gone with, it's an apolitical group. They don't talk politics at all.

And I traveled with them to India and Pakistan. And while I was in Pakistan, in Quetta, I had a meeting -- a chance encounter with the Taliban. I was just walking the local neighborhood with a local fixer, so to speak, and I came upon this group of about seven or eight guys. And I sought to convey to them our views with the group, which was to be - to bring about change in the world, you have to be more ritually observant. But they held aloft their AK-47s and they said, no, this is the way you bring about change.

So when I got back from Pakistan in 1995, in September, they had taken over Afghanistan. And I took that as a validation of their world view. That, look, indeed, change had come. And it could only be achieved through violence. And so that's the political violence aspect. But then you take it to an even greater degree. Now -- now, how do you select an out group to dehumanize that group?

And so after I got involved with another group of people who were politically violent or had politically violent views, now you start to tack on the ideological or the ideologically specific indoctrination into hating the west.

BANFIELD: Well, I'm certainly hoping that now that you have shaken off these ideologies, and now that you're a securities operative, you've been able to provide some extraordinarily valuable information for those who are trying to fight against this kind of sort of cultish recruitment behavior. But, Mubin Shaikh, thank you so much for being with us. I appreciate your time.

SHAIKH: Cheers. Thank you very much.

BANFIELD: So how does one fight an enemy that is highly motivated, very adaptable and will do anything within its power to defeat, say, you? That's a challenge that ISIS poses as it swoops into Iraq and Syria. We're going to dig deeper on the strategy to fight the terror group ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Some new causes for concern about ISIS. Reporters from "Foreign Policy Magazine" have gained access to a dusty laptop that was inside an ISIS hideout. And they are calling it the ISIS "laptop of doom." Keep in mind, these are the reporters' words. But hidden inside that laptop, more than 35,000 files, 2,300 plus folders, effectively maybe a treasure trove of documents. Like a 19-page document on how to develop biological weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected animals, including some friendly advice. Quote, "use small grenades with the virus and throw them in enclosed areas like metros, soccer stadiums or entertainment centers." Other files containing typical propaganda and jihadist training material, like videos of Osama bin Laden and manuals on how to make bombs, instructions for stealing cars, and lessons on how to travel in disguise.

So what should you make of all of this? Anything? I want to bring in Austin Long, who is a former analyst and advisor to the multinational force in Iraq and also U.S. military, and a member of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies.

Austin, thanks so much for coming in. Very alarming to see a headline, "laptop of doom." It's not like we haven't found this kind of evidence before. But, effectively, it's one thing to research and write volumes of, you know, rhetoric sometimes. It's another thing to carry out operationally what some of these things suggest. So what should Americans be making of this?

AUSTIN LONG, FMR. ANALYST, ADVISER TO MULTINATIONAL FORCE IRAQ: You're absolutely right to stress that anybody can write about how they're going to weaponize the bubonic plague, but it's actually much more difficult. So, for example, if you put a live virus in a grenade, I mean it's a living organism. The grenade explosion can kill it.

BANFIELD: It can kill it.

LONG: Exactly. So it's actually more difficult than I think this document would lead you to believe. BANFIELD: We have been hearing that for 13 years. I mean ever since

9/11, the biggest fear was, what if someone drops a dirty bomb in Times Square next? And, effectively, we've heard the same thing. It's very hard to weaponize these kinds of biological agents. However, we are 13 years later. Isn't it possible that the training and the savvy could be that much better and we could be that much closer to seeing this as reality?

LONG: It's possible. But if you look at even experienced folks with biological agents, such as the individual behind the 2001 anthrax letters, this was a guy who had worked for the Army on infectious diseases, he had a hard time weaponizing it. So it's certainly possible, but it's still difficult.

BANFIELD: Do you see anything to the U.K. raising the threat level today? I mean not to suggest this laptop hasn't been around for a few months, it was found back in the wintertime, but do you think there's any connection possibly?

LONG: There could be. I think more likely it's just the realization of the number of Britain's and other Europeans that have gone to fight and could be coming home.

BANFIELD: And also, should there be any concern in the fact that sure al Qaeda's been trying to do this, but ISIS is a lot better funded than al Qaeda and seemingly a lot more powerful in recruiting all sorts of people, perhaps very schooled and educated people, who could pull this thing off?

LONG: That's - that is a concern, particularly with the number of westerners that are flowing into Iraq and Syria. You know, al Qaeda has not been as fortunate in recruiting westerners, whereas now, with folks coming from Europe, some of them could be better educated and might be a, you know, better able to do this.

BANFIELD: Apparently this fella, the owner of the laptop, was university educated in chemistry, of all things, from a university in Tunisia.

Austin, I could speak to you about this for so much longer but I'm flat out of time. Thanks for being with us. And have a nice, long weekend.

LONG: Thank you so much for having me. You too.

BANFIELD: Thanks for coming in.

And thank you, everyone, for joining us. My colleague, Brianna Keilar, is sitting in for Wolf and she starts right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Hi there. I'm Brianna Keilar in Washington. Wolf Blitzer is on assignment today.