Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Peculiar Challenges to Fighting ISIS; ISIS is Potentially Triple the Size We Had Believed; Blade Runner Guilty of Culpable Homicide; Palin Family at a Party Where a Brawl Broke Out; More Cameras are Watching and Recording than Ever Before

Aired September 12, 2014 - 12:30   ET

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


JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: The fight against ISIS is the latest chapter in a long American war against Islamic extremists.

But it brings its own particular challenges, each of them problems that have kept the president from launching a broad campaign until now.

With military action inside Syria, the U.S. is plunging itself into a brutal and confusing civil war. ISIS is the enemy today but so is ISIS's chief rival, Bashar al Assad.

America's allies on the ground, both in Syria, the moderate Syrian rebels, and in Iraq, the Iraqi army, are unproven fighting forces. Neither has made any significant headway against ISIS on its own.

REPRESENTATIVE ADAM SCHIFF (D) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: The moderate rebels in the past haven't been proven to be a cohesive fighting unit.

In many cases, they are also not very moderate, and sometimes they make league with groups like al Nusra, which we are dedicated to fighting against.

SCIUTTO: And into this confusing war, the president is sending an additional 475 U.S. military advisers to Iraq, raising the total number of U.S. forces there to 1700. They won't be in combat but they will face risks in the air and on the ground.

And the president's pledge to limit that risk by ruling out a combat rule greatly limits the effectiveness of air strikes.

PETER MANSOOR, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: An air campaign can be highly effective if you have targeters on the ground embedded with the combat units.

SCIUTTO: On the home front, military action that many believe will last years will cost billions of dollars, disrupting if not destroying the president's attempt to shrink the Pentagon budget.

MANSOOR: It will be up to Congress to make sure that the U.S. military is not encumbered by lack of funds, lack of resources.

SCIUTTO: At stake, U.S. security at home and abroad. U.S. officials now estimate ISIS has anywhere from 20,000 to 31,500 fighters, up from an earlier estimate of just 10,000, among them, about a dozen Americans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Allahu akbar!

SCIUTTO: The fear that those Western fighters are being encouraged to carry out terror attacks when they return home.

A U.S. official tells CNN that U.S. surveillance aircraft are now flying over Syria. This, to gather intelligence for the air strikes that the president has ordered against is.

Jim Sciutto, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Jim.

Want to bring in now CNN's military analyst and retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona. OK, Colonel, let's talk about these new numbers, these ISIS estimates, three times what we thought they were.

That sounds terrifying daunting, but then if you do a comparative study, it's a little strange that we're as freaked out as we are.

Take a look at the graphic. If the high end is correct, 31,000 fighters certainly wouldn't even fill a stadium. And it's a small fraction of the Iraqi military. It's less than a third of the Free Syrian Army. I haven't even gone to the Peshmerga. There's U.S. forces as well.

I'm not sure I understand how this itty bitty little army is doing such a big job.

RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: How they've been able to sweep the entire Euphrates Valley from the Turkish border and threaten Baghdad, it's amazing.

BANFIELD: With all of those other troops to go through.

FRANCONA: Yes, it's just amazing. It's because these guys are ruthless, they know what they're doing, they move quickly, and they are fanatics, and they are not afraid to die.

And they are using tactics that ordinary, conventional forces will not use, suicide bombings --

BANFIELD: I get all that. We had kamikaze fighters as well that weren't afraid because there was a massive power that they had to face.

These guys might have stolen American gear. They might have 31,000 guys. again, half of Texas Stadium.

But I still don't understand how they have been able to effectuate such terror and such fear and make entire armies run.

FRANCONA: Because they haven't come up against the real fighting force yet. The Peshmerga is the best that they've fought, and when the Peshmerga were armed and equipped, and with the American air strikes, they've been able to turn them back.

They are not 10 feet tall, and we need to make sure that we realize these guys can be defeated. They will be defeated. They just haven't met the fighting force that's going to do it yet. The Iraqi army is not that force.

BANFIELD: I can't believe -- in our meeting this morning, we kept going over this. Really, half of Texas Stadium, that's all these guys, and we're having the president's addressing live television?

Let me ask you another issue that's critical right now. John Kerry is overseas. He's hop scotching through the Middle East and Arab states as well as Turkey, trying to form this coalition that is so critical.

If we're going to get together against ISIS, it's got to be Christians and Muslims alike, et cetera, right? Maybe not Israel, but we certainly have this now 10-state Arab coalition that's signed on with actions as appropriate, which is really a couched piece of I'm not sure we can do much but we'll sign on by name.

And then there's also Turkey. Turkey is a big, big deal, but they are not saying that they are going to allow air bases. They're not saying they're going to do any bombing. They have hostages that are being held right now.

FRANCONA: Right. The Turks are a member of NATO. They sit in a key geographic area. They've got beautiful facilities

They've got bases all over southern Turkey that would be just excellent for us to use. And you can see how close on the map it is to where we'd be flying from.

BANFIELD: By the way, we've been using them for Iraq before, right?

FRANCONA: We used them for Iraq before, but the Turks are really worried about allowing us to use them against Syria, because they do have those hostages there.

So it would be useful for us. Now the Turks have said we could use the air base for humanitarian missions. We can also use it for reconnaissance missions, but they want no offensive strikes to come from their territory.

BANFIELD: And again those hostages can't be underestimated. When you have a couple dozen hostages who are being held from that Mosul attack that are Turkish, that's really terrifying.

But there's so much more to talk about, and I know that this issue's only just beginning, forging this coalition. Colonel Rick Francona, have a great weekend. Thank you.

The prosecutors didn't get the verdict that they necessarily wanted against Oscar Pistorius, but he did not get away scot-free either

The Olympic sprinter known as the "Blade Runner" is still on the hook for killing his girlfriend, but -- and it's a big but -- how many years might he face in prison?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Olympic track star Oscar Pistorius has been convicted of culpable homicide, killing someone without intending or planning to do so. The judge granted him bail, but his sentencing is going to start on October 13th.

It's not a one-day process. It could take a while before Pistorius learns his fate.

To learn more, Robyn Curnow is in the courtroom. Take me towards the finish line. Tell me how much time he might or may not spend behind bars.

ROBYN CURNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, it's a question I've been asked a lot today and I've asked the legal experts, and essentially there isn't an answer.

What we're looking at is a judge going case-by-case totally at her discretion. There's no minimum or maximum for culpable homicide. She could give him suspended sentence, community service.

A case, which was much worse, when a taxi driver killed negligently over train tracks, he got culpable homicide and served eight years in prison. So you can see, it is certainly not the kinds of prison time and numbers that you're talking about over the murder charge, which were around 15 to 25 years. Definitely much less than that. Or not at all, even.

BANFIELD: Or nothing at all. This is something Americans might find strange. If prosecutors don't like what they hear, they can appeal?

CURNOW: Absolutely. And there was a hint from that today, the national prosecuting attorney saying that they are going to wake for the sentencing and then make a decision on whether they are going to appeal.

There has been some legal critics saying perhaps they felt the judge had read some of the minutia of the law wrong. They can and are legally required to, if they want to, challenge the judgment and they can do it on matters of law, not on matters of fact. I think that's a crucial issue.

BANFIELD: All right. Robyn Curnow, thank you, live from South Africa, with still a long road ahead, my friend. I'm sorry to tell you, you're not going on vacation yet.

And joining me to talk about the reasoning behind the judge's decision is HLN's legal analyst Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos. I've got the A team.

Gentlemen --

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to be here, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: -- first of all, I feel like we started talking about this when I was 16. This trial has just gone on and on.

But what's so fascinating about this is what culpable homicide is. Am I right if I describe it this way? You made a big mistake.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Galactically stupid, Ashleigh, I think is how the code drafts it.

BANFIELD: But you made a big mistake, but it's the kind of mistake that a reasonable man wouldn't.

JACKSON: Good job.

BANFIELD: Is that what's critical here? The reasonable man wouldn't do what you did.

CEVALLOS: Absolutely. And it's somewhat similar to what we have here, criminal negligence is different from what we call civil negligence, but basically it's a high, high degree of negligence, almost reckless.

You did someone that was objectively unreasonable, and you probably knew what you were doing was a little risky. And in a case like this, the judge's reasoning appears to be that she didn't find any intent.

Now, remember, we know we he intended to fire the gun. It's what was his additional intent. What did he want to cause by firing that gun? And this really is a mistake-of-fact type case. Was his mistake reasonable based on all of the surrounding circumstances?

The only thing I found a little problematic, maybe for appeal purposes, is that she stated on the record that the judge didn't find him that credible. And I thought it was very interesting to say, here I found the defendant to be a not credible person, yet -- yet I am buying in at least partly to his theory of defense.

JACKSON: Good point.

BANFIELD: You know, what's different -- there's a lot of differences in their system and the American system, but one of the sentencing issues that I've come to learn -- and Robyn was alluding to it when she said, I can't tell you the answer to that.

Every sentencing takes into account the person. It's not just the crime. There's no sort of guideline that nails you for the crime, no matter what. And this guy is a hero --

JACKSON: He definitely is.

BANFIELD: -- in that country.

JACKSON: And, not for anything, but I think that may have even factored into her analysis of her decision. And you know what is troubling to me, and it's been troubling since law school, if I can admit this is that factually you can make any determination -- there's a reasonable inference on the facts to draw, to justify your conclusion.

And here's what I mean. You certainly in a case like this if you're a judge and you interpret it in a different way, you could have said it was intentional. You could have said what reasonable person, Ashleigh, if you're so concerned for the person who's sleeping right next to you doesn't check that bed?

What reasonable person would run right to a bathroom after drawing your firearm and pump four shots without doing anything?

And so her interpretation, in and of itself, finding negligence, right, she could find it and she justified her decision very well, Ashleigh, but it always troubled me that based upon certain facts you could draw certain conclusions, and you could justify anything.

Now, with regard to the sentence that she imposes, will his celebrity influence the sentence that's actually done. And she has such broad discretion, from zero to 15 years here, and so she could say, on the one hand, you know what --

BANFIELD: I hear even more. There's apparently no maximum. So everyone keeps throwing out 15, but it's like, well, if there's no maximum --

JACKSON: Well, based upon -

BANFIELD: It's a little odd, isn't it?

JACKSON: Yes. But based upon the guidelines as we know them to be now -

BANFIELD: As we know them. It's cultural. Cultural violence.

JACKSON: Right. Right.

BANFIELD: Traditional as opposed to (INAUDIBLE).

JACKSON: It's 15. Common law.

BANFIELD: Very strange. I mean I love the fact that they do this according to tradition and less according to actual statute.

But just quickly, Danny, she has a brutal record. She is tough. In that courtroom, she has excoriated defendants and those who have been convicted in front of her before. Do we expect that that same thing will translate to this case because, if not, it's special treatment?

CEVALLOS: Well, sentencing is totally different. And when you talk about special treatment, I will concede defendants do get special treatment based on their status. After all, it's actually a critical part of sentencing. What kind of person are you as a defendant? Do you have a prior record? The fact that Oscar Pistorius is a celebrity won't be a factor supporting a good sentence, but what will be a factor in the lack of any criminal history or the extent of his criminal history, or the fact that he's unlikely to flee. That factored into his bail.

BANFIELD: Sure.

CEVALLOS: So, yes, we treat all defendants differently. No two are alike. Very much like snowflakes.

JACKSON: Sure.

BANFIELD: Yes.

JACKSON: But will she predicate it on the severity of the offense? And that's the issue. And if she does, you could expect a lot of time.

BANFIELD: You busy in October?

CEVALLOS: We'll be back here.

BANFIELD: That sentencing set for October. Danny Cevallos, Joey Jackson, have a great weekend.

JACKSON: A pleasure and a privilege. Thank you, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Thanks for coming in. Always great to talk to you both.

If you are out and about, not just today, any day, smile because there's a really good chance that you're on camera somewhere. Ray Rice might still be in the NFL right now were it not for a surveillance camera. He is not the only person to get busted like this. So is it a good thing that there's someone always watching you?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Cops, criminals, cheating spouses and trouble making teenagers, they just can't get away with stuff like they used to. In this age of surveillance video and red light cams, iPhones and Go Pros, there's a pretty darn good chance that anything you do has a chance of showing up on YouTube. So with all the cameras that are rolling, why do people just keep on misbehaving? CNN's Sara Sidner has a closer look at the caught on camera culture that now we are living in.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This month, surveillance video released of Ray Rice knocking out his wife in an elevator. Last month, it was video released of CEO Desmond Hague caught kicking and choking a puppy on another elevator. And in May there was this, superstar Beyonce's sister Solange going nuts and attacking Jay-z in yet another elevator.

JEFF GARDERE, PSYCHOLOGIST: We have become desensitized to all the cameras around us.

SIDNER (on camera): There are more cameras watching and recording our everyday activity than ever before, whether they're hovering out of sight on street corners or inside hotel elevators. We know this. So why is it that people, especially those in high places with a lot to lose, keep getting caught doing disturbing things on surveillance cameras?

GARDERE: What happens is it gives them what they feel is the privacy to be able to let out some of the emotions that were already there.

SIDNER (voice-over): Elevators may feel private, but that's not what the law says.

LAURIE LEVENSON, LOYOLA LAW PROFESSOR: We usually only worry about when the government does something illegal, when they tape illegally. But if you work somewhere or you go to visit somewhere, you have a right to expect that it's going to be private. We all know that elevators are being watched.

SIDNER: There hasn't been legal action in all of the cases but each has faced public backlash. Rice has pleaded not guilty to an assault charge, but was fired by the Ravens. Hague resigned as CEO of his company under immense public pressure. And Solange was simply subjected to social media scolding and negative press. But legal experts warn, even for private citizens, the consequences of a caught on camera moment can last a lifetime the moment it hits the Internet.

LEVENSON: You know there's that phrase "permanent record." Well, that's more true now than ever. You know, there's a push back. Some people are saying, if I do stupid things when I'm done, can't I be forgiven when I'm older? But so far, the public's not very forgiving.

SIDNER: And that may include future employers. So even if you're not breaking the law, you could still end up paying for it for the rest of your life.

Sara Sidner, CNN, Los Angeles.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: So the Palin family is probably pretty happy that there's no video camera or at least anything that's been released so far of a party that they were at on Saturday night in Anchorage, Alaska, because a big old fight broke out and, guess what, there's a police report, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, Sarah Palin. She's back in the news, and her family is, too. We got our hands on a police report about a big fistfight. The fight was at a party last weekend. And in attendance at the party was the Palin family. It just happened to be the same day as Todd Palin's 50th birthday as well. I want to bring in CNN national correspondent Suzanne Malveaux.

Suzanne, whenever Sarah Palin's name is raised, there's always a ton of rumors and then there are facts. And there is actual facts that come from the - facts that come from the police. What are they? SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, there are not a lot of facts to come by. I want to be clear what we know, what we don't know. We're used to seeing the Palin family, right, on the reality show featuring them kayaking, mountain climbing, dog sledding, all of that, target shooting. But if you believe the reports here, it could be a lot more interesting, this reality show, because we're tracking down the reports from several bloggers, media bloggers, and those who are in the area.

They were reporting that the Palins were allegedly involved in this brawl that took place at the joint birthday party last Saturday. Now, according to the reports who sight eyewitnesses there, they say that Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, as well as the vice presidential nominee, along with her husband Todd and their children, Bristol, Willow and Track, pulled up in a Hummer together. It was Todd's 50th birthday. He was one of those that the party was celebrating.

According to the report, Track, the son, sees his sister's - Willow's ex-boyfriend. They get into an argument. There's a lot of screaming. Allegedly the other sister, Bristol, starts swinging. And Sarah Palin allegedly yells, "don't you know who I am?"

Well, here's what the police have to say. They don't give us those kinds of details, but they do offer this explanation. It's rather vague but it says and confirms that "on Saturday, September 6, 2014, just before midnight, Anchorage Police responded to a report of a verbal and physical altercation taking place between multiple subjects outside of a residence. At the time of the incident, none of the involved parties wanted to press charges. No arrests were made. Alcohol was believed to have been a factor in the incident and some of the Palin family members were in attendance."

We are reaching out to the Palin family, as well as others who attended that party. I should let you know, Ashleigh, that on her FaceBook page she mentions the day after this altercation that she wishes her husband a happy birthday.

BANFIELD: OK. Well, let us know if the police or the Palins get back with anything more on that.

MALVEAUX: All right.

BANFIELD: Suzanne Malveaux, thank you.

I just want to close with some news that we just learned. This breaking right now.