Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

British PM Speaks Before Parliament on ISIS Threat

Aired September 01, 2014 - 10:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. I'm Carol Costello. Thanks so much for joining me.

At any moment now we'll hear from British Prime Minister David Cameron. He's about to pitch new tough measures confronting the threat of ISIS and real possibility that radicalized citizens could bring that fight home. So British citizens who fight for the Islamic State could be banned from coming home, and those citizens who are suspected of terrorism could be stripped of their passports.

Erin McLaughlin and Max Foster are in London. Michelle Kosinski is at the White House. CNN political commentators Ben Ferguson and Marc Lamont Hill are here with me in New York. And national security analyst Juliette Kayyem joins me by phone. Welcome to all of you. I appreciate it.

I want to start with you, Max Foster. Tell us what's going on in parliament right now.

MAX FOSTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: David Cameron has just arrived, so he's on time. He's going to present his response really to that heightened terror alert level they announced last week. He's up against it though because what he wants to do is stop jihadis, British jihadis from returning to the U.K. from Iraq and Syria.

It's not as simple as that though. You are effectively taking away someone's statehood which is illegal in international law. Also it undermines certain civil liberties here in the U.K. There's a great tradition of that. And he's in partnership in coalition with the liberal democrats who are very strong with civil liberties.

So debates with partners in the coalition over the weekend, but also lots of conversations with lawyers to see what's possible because when he's tried this in the past, the courts have blocked many of his proposals and he's going to present what is a compromise to the parliament in the next half hour. It would be very interesting to see how tough he's able to be on British jihadis.

COSTELLO: It will be interesting to see. Erin McLaughlin, I want to go to you now. Where are the British citizens on this? What do they want?

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think there's some British citizens who are concerned. I mean any time you hear from your government that a terrorist attack is highly likely, well, that's alarming language, but I also think there are some British citizens who are skeptical. They think that the government is simply trying to scare the general population into support for these broader counterterrorism powers. So there's a really healthy debate playing out here in Britain at present between the need to protect civil liberties and the need to counter terrorism.

COSTELLO: I'm sorry. They just called the Prime Minister in. So let's listen for a second.

DAVID CAMERON, PRIME MINISTER OF U.K.: -- and on the measures we're taking to defeat extremism and to keep our country safe.

First on the council, we agreed that Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk should serve as the next council president. And Italian Foreign Minister Frederico Mogherini should become the next high representative for foreign and security policy. Donald Tusk made clear in his acceptance speech that he places a high priority on addressing Britain's concerns over the E.U. and I look forward to working with him in his new role.

Mr. Speaker, the council spent most of its time focusing on the big international issues that have concerned us all this summer -- the situations in Ukraine, Gaza and the growing threat of ISIL in Iraq and Syria. And I want to discuss each.

The presence of Russian soldiers on Ukrainian soil is completely unjustified and unacceptable. I met with President Poroshenko before the counsel on Saturday and with our support, he's invited to address the council. The real cause of this conflict is Russia's refusal to recognize Ukraine's independence and sovereignty. Decisions on Ukraine's political and economic relationships should be for the people of Ukraine, no one else.

But Russia appears to be trying to force Ukraine to abandon its democratic choices at the barrel of a gun. In the last two weeks we've seen a dramatic stepping up of Russian military support to the separatists in eastern Ukraine, including Russian troops fighting on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, we know from European history the grave danger of a nation state being threatened and undermined in this way. So the European Council agreed that the economic cost it has already imposed on Russia must be stepped up if Moscow persists with these indefensible actions. The council was clear that new sanctions measures will be drawn up within a week.

And Mr. Speaker I don't accept the suggestion that sanctions are not having an impact. Capital has flown out of Russia. Banks are short of finance and the Russian stock market and ruble have fallen significantly. Mr. Speaker, we have to show real resilience and resolve. Russia needs to understand that if it continues on their current path that its relationship with the rest of the world will be radically different in the future.

Turning to Israel and Gaza, we have all been deeply saddened by the violence we've seen and the dreadful civilian suffering it's caused particularly to innocent children. The government has worked hard with our international partners to help bring about a sustainable cease-fire and we warmly welcome the agreement reached in Cairo.

Mr. Speaker, the loss of life this summer has been truly appalling and the number of civilian casualties completely unacceptable. The life of a Palestinian child is worth the same as a child in any one of our nations. But support for a lasting settlement that includes a Palestinian State does not mean we should ever support the terrorist tactics of Hamas who've rained down rockets on Israel and continue to refuse to accept cease-fires.

We will continue to support Israel and Israel's right to defend itself, but that does not mean we support every decision the Israeli government takes. Most recently, the appropriation of nearly a thousand acres of land in the West Bank near Bethlehem is utterly deplorable. Settlements are illegal under international law. They will do nothing to create the kind of peace process we all want to see. And we urge the Israeli government to reverse this decision.

Mr. Speaker, while I understand the many strong emotions around this tragic conflict, I am though deeply concerned by growing reports of anti-Semitism on our own streets here in Britain. Let me be clear we must not tolerate this in our country. There can never be any excuse for anti-Semitism and no disagreements on politics or policy should ever be allowed to justify racism, prejudice or extremism in any form.

Turning to the terrorist threat we face here in the U.K., we have all been shocked and sickened the barbarism we've witnessed in Iraq this summer. The widespread slaughter of Muslims by fellow Muslims, the vicious persecution of religious such as Christian and Yazidis, the enslavement and raping of women and, of course, the beheading of the American journalist James Foley with the voice of what seems to have been a British terrorist recorded on that video.

The European Council's conclusions could not be clearer and I quote, "The European Council believes the creation of Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria and the Islamist extremism and export of terrorism on which it is based is a direct threat to every European country.

On Friday, the Independent Joint Terrorism Analyst Center increased the threat level in the United Kingdom from substantial to severe. We now believe that at least 500 people have traveled from Britain to fight in the region. This is in addition to 700 from France, 400 from Germany, and hundreds more from countries including America, Canada, Austria, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, The Netherlands and Australia.

The council agreed to coordinate action in cracking down on those traveling to fight in Syria and Iraq and making sure that all European countries are taking necessary steps to tackle this problem of radicalization. We should be clear about the root cause of this threat -- a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism which believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a medieval state. We should be clear that this has nothing to do with Islam which is a religion peacefully observed and devoutly observed by over a billion people and one that inspires countless acts of kindness every day there is.

To confront the threat of Islamist extremism, we need a tough, intelligent, patient and comprehensive approach to defeat the terrorist threat at its source. We must use all the resources at our disposal, our aid, our diplomacy and our military. We need a firm security response with a military action to go after terrorists, international cooperation on intelligence, with uncompromising action against terrorists at home.

Britain is already providing equipment directly to Kurdish forces. We support U.S. military airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq. And we've secured a United Nations' Security Council resolution to disrupt the flows of finance to ISIL to sanction those who are seeking to recruit to ISIL and to encourage countries to do all they can to prevent foreign fighters joining the extremist cause.

But alongside a tough security response, there must also be the right political response. We know that terrorist organizations thrive where there is political instability and weak or dysfunctional institutions, so we must support the building blocks of free and open societies. In Syria it must mean a political transition and an end to Assad's brutality which has allowed ISIL to flourish. In Iraq that must begin with a new and genuinely inclusive government capable of uniting all Iraqis -- Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Christian and others against the shared thread.

The NATO Summit in Wales this week will provide an opportunity for us to review the effectiveness of the international response so far and discuss what more we should do to help the region overcome the ISIL threat.

Britain will continue to consider what further role is in our national interest including any further diplomatic, humanitarian, or indeed military measures we might take.

Mr. Speaker, let me turn to how we address the terrorist threat at home. We have already taken a wide range of measures, including stopping suspects from traveling to the region by seizing passports, barring foreign nationals from reentering the United Kingdom, legislating so that we can prosecute people for all terrorist activity even where that activity takes place overseas and bringing forward emergency legislation, for instance, to safeguard our use of communications data.

We've also stepped up our operational response with a five-fold increase in Syria-related arrests, the removal of 28,000 pieces of extremist material from the Internet this year alone including 46 ISIL-related videos.

But I've said all along there should not be a knee-jerk reaction or the introduction of sweeping, new, blanket powers that would ultimately be ineffective. That is not what those who work so hard to keep us safe actually want. They want a targeted approach that reflects a forensic focus on the threat we face and that protects their operation, independence, and decision making. To achieve this, there are two key areas where we now need to strengthen our powers to fill specific gaps in our armory. These are around preventing suspects from traveling and dealing decisively with those already here who pose a risk. And I want to just mention them both briefly.

First -- stopping people from traveling in the first speaker. Mr. Speaker, passports are not an automatic right. The home secretary already has the discretion to issue, revoke and refuse passports under the royal prerogative if there's reason to believe that people are planning to take part in terrorist-related activity. But when police suspect a traveler at the border, they are not currently able apply for the prerogative and so only have limited stop and search powers.

So we will introduce specific and targeted legislation to fill this gap by providing the police with the temporary power seize a passport at the border during which time they'll be able to investigate the individual concerned. This power will include prerogative safeguards and of course, oversight arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, the House should also be aware that our current prerogative powers are being challenged in the courts. And I want to be clear, if there is any judgment that threatens the operation of our existing powers we will introduce primary legislation immediately so that parliament, not the courts can determine whether it is right that we have this power. And I can announce today that we'll now start preparing the legislation and consult parliament on the draft clauses.

Now as well as stopping people going, we must also keep out foreign fighters who would pose a threat to the U.K. We do already have important powers to block return. We can deprive dual nationals of their citizenship to stop them returning. We can bar foreign nationals on the basis of the threat they pose and we legislated in the immigration act to allow stronger powers to strip citizenship from naturalized Britons. But of course, these powers do not apply to those who are solely British nationals who could be rendered stateless if deprived of citizenship.

Now, some have said we should deal with this gap by criminalizing travel to certain individual countries or fundamentally changing our criminal burden of proof. The government is clear that it will be wrong to deal with this gap by fundamentally changing core principles of our criminal justice system. But it is abhorrent that people who declare their allegiance elsewhere are able to return to the United Kingdom and pose a threat to our national security.

We're clear in principle that what we need is a targeted discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the U.K. And we'll work up proposals on this basis with our agencies in line with our international obligations and discuss the details on a cross-party basis.

Mr. Speaker, we're also putting our longstanding arrangements on aviation security around the world on a statutory footing. Airlines will have to comply with our no fly list arrangements, give us information on passenger lists and comply with our security screening requirements. If they do not do this, their flights will not be able to land in Britain.

Second, we need stronger powers to manage the risk posed by suspected extremists already here in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary can already impose terrorism prevention and investigations measures on security grants including overnight residence requirements and Internet restrictions. But the intelligence agencies and the police believe they need stronger powers to impose further restrictions and an independent review of counterterrorism legislation David Anderson agrees.

So we will introduce new powers to add to our existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures including stronger locational constraints on suspects under (inaudible) either through enhanced use of exclusion zones or through relocation powers.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with this terrorist threat is not just about new powers. It is also about how we combat extremism in all its forms. That is why we have a new approach to tackling radicalization, focusing on all types of extremism not just violent extremism. This has included stopping the funding of organizations that promote extremism, banning hate preachers and ensuring every part of government from schools and universities to prisons are all focused on beating this scourge of extremism.

As part of this we're now putting our deradicalization program called Chanel (ph) on a statutory footing. Anyone subject to our strengthened terrorism prevention investigation measures will be required to engage with the preventive program.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be an open, free and tolerant nation, but that tolerance must never be confused with a passive acceptance of cultures, living separate lives, or people behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values. Adhering to British values is not option or a choice. It is a duty for all of those who live in these islands. So we will stand up for our values, we will in the end defeat this extremism and we will secure our way of life for generations to come. And I commend this statement to the House.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ed Miliband --

ED MILIBAND, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.

COSTELLO: All right. We're going to step away from this for just a second because David Cameron brought up so many interesting ways to deal with terrorism within Britain.

I'm going to go to Max Foster first. And Max I want to ask you did anything in the British Prime Minister's comments surprise you?

FOSTER: Well, there are four points that he really made. These are the big changes and they refer to dealing with British jihadis, those that are either inspired by what's going on in Syria and Iraq or have actually traveled there and they're coming back and are therefore a threat within the U.K. so already, the British authorities can seize passports of suspected jihadis in the U.K. What was a problem if police suspected people leaving the U.K. are suspected jihadis, they weren't allowed to seize their passports at the border. They will now be allowed to do that. In terms of jihadis coming back from Iraq and Syria, suspected ones, he is going to introduce discretionary power to exclude British nationals from the U.K. taking away their statehood. There's going to be a lot of discussion around how it can be possible. I suspect it will only be a temporary power because you cannot tell someone they don't belong to a country. They have to ultimately belong to a country but there will have to be some compromise around that. But that is quite a bold move.

The two other things, aviation security -- if an airline won't give a passenger list to the U.K. authorities, they won't be allowed to land in the U.K. And then the discussion around controlled orders -- he didn't talk about control orders because they have been so controversial in this country, often been blocked by the courts. But he is going to strengthen the power to stop suspected jihadis in the U.K. from moving -- their locational restrictions as it were. So they're either going to have extra powers at least to keep people within their homes or stop them going to certain areas.

So, a sweeping set of powers and there will be discussion around them. It's already started with the leader of the opposition making his points. But quite a bold move today, I think -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Quite a bold move. I want to talk a little bit about the moves that David Cameron suggested with Ben Ferguson and Marc Lamont Hill. He's almost criminalizing travel for certain people -- right.

MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It scares me and again I understand the legitimacy of the terror threat and the measures that have to be taken. David Cameron has obviously taken probably more strong measures than anyone else in Europe right now.

But when you start talking about blocking the right of return for British citizens, you are talking about denying statehood which violates international law. That's an issue. Taking things off the Internet -- I understand the logic of taking away some of these images, particularly ISIS images. But again it speaks to freedom of speech -- it absolutely not. And then when you talk about hate preachers -- banning hate preachers, that scares me again, because that speaks of censorship.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's terrifying. It would never -- I don't think it would ever happen in the United States. I mean there is a lot more of Islamic extremism in the U.K., far more than we have here. They are much more outspoken people that are preaching hate in the U.K. than there is here. But to ban it -- I mean how are you going to do that? If someone criticizes David Cameron or the government, you have to worry about that abuse of if a preacher comes out and says we denounce what they are doing in government, am I going to be then taken off the podium? How do you do that? Do I get sent somewhere else? Do I get arrested? That is going to be, I think, somewhat (inaudible). HILL: Some people will say that's an extreme case but what we saw in the aftermath of 9/11 was that very thing, a set of laws (inaudible) for a very particular purpose were then used as a pretext to impose other types of civil liberty restrictions. And that's what I'd be worried about here.

COSTELLO: Well, I want to bring in Juliette Kayyem. She's our CNN national security analyst. Juliette, David Cameron spoke about these new ideas, and said they would be temporary. So would that be a problem if they're temporary.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: No, I mean it's important for viewers to understand the sort of legal background that Cameron is playing in. There's two relevant factors. The first is that Britain historically has had what's called emergency powers that have lasted indefinitely. That was because of their internal Irish and Irish terrorism threat.

And so he's gotten a lot of criticism for that, and so it was important for him at least with these new, and I agree with the others there, very sweeping measures that he said that they were temporary. He's not asking for long-term rights or new rules.

The second is he's also working within the European Union and a series of international laws and agreements across the European continent that are -- that are careful to support civil liberties, that are careful to support privacy issues and so anything that Britain does is going to be challenged by potentially the courts and the European Union and others, and so, you know, these were sweeping powers. He tried to put them as benignly as possible because of the background of what he knows he's going to encounter both in the courts and with the British public.

COSTELLO: All right. Let's head out to the White House and check in with Michelle Kosinski. So President Obama surely will be listening at some point to David Cameron's remarks today. So is he sitting back going "hmm"?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Is he considering acting because of this you mean? Well, probably not. I mean you look at sort of the evolution of these statements over the last couple of weeks and President Obama delivered a very strong, some might say emotional address right after word came out of the execution of American journalist James Foley by ISIS, and that was, you know, those words were sort of seized upon. Ok, the U.S. is getting tough on ISIS. Let's see what happens.

And the questions started what about Syria, when is that coming. Then the President just delivered this address the other day in which he said well, we don't have a strategy for Syria yet. And everyone seized on that one phrase, even though it was a very sort of targeted response to one question and many felt that the reaction to that was unfair.

Then comes this David Cameron speech the other day where he's really kind of foreshadowing everything that he's laid out now. All of these get tough approaches within the U.K. So I think if you were going to sort put it as some kind of contest, which one of these addresses sounded tougher and stronger, of course, it would be the U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

But this isn't a great comparison because the threat faced by the U.K. is different in many ways that we don't have to list here, than the threat faced by the U.S. So we're talking about potential military action here which by the way Cameron also addressed in this speech just now.

So is the U.S. going to react based on some kind of P.R. pressure when we're dealing with something so serious? No, absolutely not. But is there pressure to appear in control and on top of things and taking this seriously? Sure -- Carol.

COSTELLO: I know, because I was just talking to Ben and Marc Lamont Hill, it's kind of embarrassing because our lawmakers and the President are nowhere to be found -- right.

David Cameron is talking to parliament and they are like, you know, putting his feet to the fire.

FERGUSON: I think that's part of what you saw with that poll number that just had up there. I mean there's a lot of people I think who are looking and saying President Obama are you going to come out and really talk in a tough way toward ISIS or are they going to continue to be successful with us kind of being timid and pulling back?

David Cameron, the way he's handling this, you know -- you may not like everything he's doing and there's certainly going to be debate over it. But there's no doubt that he is focused on ISIS as a threat to the people in that country and I think that will play well with the people of the U.K., especially since the threat there is so real.

COSTELLO: I got to hold off on your comment. I've got to take a break but we'll listen to it on the other side of break. I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COSTELLO: All right. As we just told you moments -- as you heard moments ago, the British Prime Minister David Cameron announcing a series of steps to protect Britain from home-grown terrorists, among them that U.K. passports he said are not an automatic right and that the government will provide U.K. police with a temporary power to seize a passport at the border while a person is being investigated. They don't even have to be sure that the person is a terrorist.

Of course, Britain seems to be very concerned about home grown terrorism and about British citizens who go overseas to fight for the Islamic State coming back into their country. The United States does not seem as concerned as Britain and Marc Lamont Hill, before the break you were saying that --

HILL: They have reason to not to be as concerned as the U.K. is. I mean you saw 500 Britons with passports who may be going in and out training, getting sort of radicalized training. That's not happening in the United States yet. It doesn't mean it's not a threat. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned be about but not to the same extent.

But the bigger point I was making is that David Cameron is performing toughness. He's giving a performance of what a tough leader is supposed to look like in the face of terror. I'm not sure that it's the right strategy. To look tough and engage in policies of violating civil liberties and that ultimately undermine a coherent and effective strategy against ISIS I think is the worst think.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: I don't think he's trying to look tough. I think he really believes the threat of ISIS into his country is this real, this much in his face and it is very legitimate at this point in time. And you never get credit as a leader of any country for the threats that actually don't materialize and are not successful. You only get blamed when it looks like you didn't do enough to stop a threat.

I think David Cameron releases with 500 plus passports that they know about and as much radicalism as there is inside the U.K. that he has to make it very clear that this is our line that we are drawing.

HILL: But at what expense is the question?

FERGUSON: Well, I think it's going to be debated. It's going to be debated.

HILL: It comes at the expense of international law and at the expense of civil liberties. We have a problem here. I saw at least two red flags in his speech today. But beyond that a hawkish strategy on ISIS I think actually creates the very thing you're trying to eliminate --

COSTELLO: Let's talk about military action. He sort of touched on it. I want to go out to London to check in with Erin McLaughlin. You know, ISIS is strong in Iraq and in Syria. The British Prime Minister didn't really address that.

MCLAUGHLIN: No, but we have heard regarding military options, we did hear from the British defense minister -- defense secretary rather over the weekend saying that Britain has not been asked by the U.S. forces to support air strikes and that if they were asked, they would consider that option. They are helping to support the situation in Iraq in a number of different ways, include providing aid as well as providing transport for weapons from Eastern Europe to help Kurdish forces in northern Iraq -- Carol.

COSTELLO: Erin McLaughlin.

Max Foster I have 30 seconds -- last word. Max Foster just left. So he doesn't get the final word. It's up to you guys -- Ben and Marc.

HILL: We have to be very careful of military action. Right now we are essentially acting as Iran's air force in Iraq and we're essentially an aid to Bashar al Assad right now in Syria. It's very easy to say let's be hawkish but it's very complicated.

COSTELLO: But the airstrikes are working Ben.

FERGUSON: They are and we need to be more vigilant but I also think that at some point President Barack Obama has to make it very clear that we're going to lead on this and not be so cautious from behind because that's what puts I think him in a bad place.

COSTELLO: All right. Thanks to all of you. I really appreciate it.

That does it for me. Thank you so much for joining me. I'm Carol Costello.

"@THIS HOUR WITH BERMAN AND MICHAELA" starts now.