Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Australia Terror Attack Foiled;U.S. Prepares to Aid Free Syrian Army; NFL Going Through Crisis Due to Players' Violent Behavior; Darren Wilson Testifies before Grand Jury

Aired September 18, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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


MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: I have so much work to do with you.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: And that's it. I had to bring it. Why?

"LEGAL VIEW" with Ashleigh Banfield, luckily, starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

And we begin with the breaking news and that is in the fight against ISIS. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel just told Congress moments ago that top military officials have now signed off on that plan for launching air strikes against ISIS targets inside Syria. Secretary Hagel also said the president was briefed on those plans during his CENTCOM visit on Wednesday, but CNN's Barbara Starr is reporting that the president has not yet signed off on those plans. Stay tuned for that.

In the meantime, we're also following a big story out of Australia where a grisly terror plot in the country's biggest city was foiled just in the nick of time. It is a sobering reminder that ISIS could attack anywhere at any time. But is anything similar here in the works here in the U.S.? The danger ISIS poses to the United States is a top priority right now on Capitol Hill. If you need proof of that, pictures on your screen right now. These are live pictures. The secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, and the secretary of state, John Kerry, have been briefing two different House committees about this war against ISIS. It's their second day on The Hill testifying about this extremist group.

All the while, Australia has now raised its terror level. Its alert is now at the highest level after raids in Sydney this morning stopped ISIS sympathizers from carrying out a demonstration killing. And that's a quote, "demonstration killing." Effectively it means this, and get ready, they were planning to kidnap a random person and then behead that person in public, all the while videotaping it.

All this as President Obama's trying to convince Congress that his plan to take on ISIS is the right path. The House passed Obama's plan to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels on Wednesday. That said, 71 Democrats broke rank with the president and voted against that bill. Some of them saying that they just don't trust those rebels, moderate or not, and that they just don't think the plan will work. The Senate is expected to vote on that measure a little later on today.

It seems that ISIS certainly does now pose a credible threat to Europe, America and now Australia. CNN's Ivan Watson begins our coverage of the terror plot that has put another continent on edge.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Predawn raids across Australia's largest city. Authorities are calling it the country's biggest ever anti-terror operation. Armed with dozens of search warrants, Australian security forces detained at least 15 suspects. The Australian media reporting disturbing details. The suspects allegedly planned to film the public beheading of a random individual and then drape the body in the black flag of ISIS.

ANDREW SCIPIONE, NSW POLICE COMMISSIONER: Is of serious concern that right at the heart of our communities we have people that are planning to conduct random attacks. And today, we've worked together to make sure that that didn't happen. We have, in fact, disrupted that particular attack.

WATSON: Among the suspects detained, a man named Omar John Azari (ph), who appeared briefly in a Sydney court, charged with a terrorism- related offense. He did not enter a plea. His neighbors shocked a suspected terrorist lived next door.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never thought I would see anything like this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's actually quite frightening. My heart is actually pounding.

WATSON: Prime Minister Tony Abbott says he believes at least 60 Australians are fighting alongside ISIS and other militant groups in the Middle East. He's repeatedly voiced fear these Australian jihadis could pose a threat if they ever come home. Australian intelligence revealed ISIS was urging home grown sympathizers to carry out attacks in Australia.

TONY ABBOTT, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: Quite direct exhortations were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in ISIL to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country.

WATSON: Last week, Australia raised its threat level too high for the first time in the country's history, warning a terrorist attack is likely.

Ivan Watson, CNN, Hong Kong.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: And as we showed you earlier, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is testifying right now in front of the House Armed Services Committee about the threat that ISIS poses. Here is what he said just a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Assistance that we initially provide would consist of small arms, vehicles, and basic equipment, like communications, as well as tactical and more advanced training. As these forces prove their effectiveness on the battlefield, we would be prepared to provide increasingly sophisticated types of assistance to the most trusted commanders and capable forces. The goal is not to achieve numerical parody with ISIL, but to ensure that moderate Syrian forces are superior fighters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Ah-hah. So is this the clue to how this vetting process is supposed to happen? Is this the answer to the question so many people have been asking about these so-called moderate forces and how we could possibly vet these people to know that they're actually friendlies and might not turn those weapons against American forces in the future? Is this maybe the answer?

Joining me to talk about this threat is CNN's national security analyst Peter Bergen.

I think it's the first time, Peter, I've heard this strategy. We will dole out the goods in dribs and drabs. Little bits of equipment first and when you prove yourself on the battlefield the big guns start coming afterwards. Does that make sense to you?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it does, but there's one, I think, Ashleigh, potential flaw, which is, you know, some of these moderate groups have not been particularly good at fighting compared to ISIS and they may lose in a battle and their equipment may be taken by ISIS. So I mean every time you put more arms into a conflict zone, there remains the possibility that ISIS can capture them. And we saw, you know, when they took much of northern Iraq, that they seized tanks and armored personnel carriers and the like with relative ease from the Iraqi army. So, I mean, how you prevent against that, I don't know.

BANFIELD: And the secretary just actually listed out the kinds of things that they would be prepared to start supplying. Small arms, vehicles, basic equipment like communications, as well as tactical and more advanced training. But then you heard the secretary just say on Capitol Hill, after that, when the forces prove their effectiveness, then perhaps they'd go on to provide the more sophisticated engagement. But at the same time, Peter, this is where I see the disconnect. If you have to fight a force like ISIS, is communications and small arms going to help you do that? How are you going to be able to prove yourself on the battlefield unless you're dead by that point?

BERGEN: Well, you know, the enemy of the perfect (ph) is not the reason we OK (ph). And the fact is that this is a plan. I mean we can pick it apart. It's obviously going -- no plan is perfect. But, I mean, I think this is better than probably nothing in terms of the conflict, which, you know, there's a lot of academic literature on the question of how long civil wars go on for, Ashleigh, and, you know, typically, they average about 10 to 15 years. And we've seen insurgencies of the type that we've seen in Syria that can go on for 50 years. In Colombia we've seen the FARC go on for that period of time. So this is not a short-term conflict. I mean this is - I mean the viewers should understand that the United States is probably going to be engaged in this long after President Barack Obama has left office. And, you know, this is the beginning of something. It's not -- this is not the end of something. And it's very easy - you know, Machiavelli said a long time ago, wars begin when you will, but they do not end at a time of your choosing. And we've seen that, you know, we're still in America's longest war in Afghanistan. No one thought that it would be going on now for 13 years. So, you know, it's a beginning of a plan. It's not -- you know, there will be other dimensions of this going forward.

BANFIELD: I think we'll be witnessing a lot of the fine tuning day to day. Peter Bergen, good to see you. Thank you, sir.

BERGEN: Thank you, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Another big story that we're following, domestic abuse cases in the NFL, and there is yet another player who's been arrested. Arizona's Jonathan Dwyer charged just last night and another day with no sign of the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. What can he do? What should he do to deal with this issue? And, by the way, where is he? We'll talk about it straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Another day, another NFL player charged with domestic abuse. This time, Arizona. It's the Cardinals' running back Jonathan Dwyer. He was arrested on domestic violence charges last night. So now he's been deactivated by that team. His alleged victims are a 27-year-old woman and an 18-month-old child. Dwyer joins three other big stars who have been banned from playing the field for off-field violence.

In the meantime, the CEO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi, has released a very strong statement about the NFL's woes and we got our hands on it. Our Poppy Harlow got her hands on it. And this is what the quote says. "I am a mother, a wife, and a passionate football fan. I am deeply disturbed that the repugnant behavior of a few players and the NFL's acknowledged mishandling of these issues is casting a cloud over the integrity of the league and the reputations of the majority of players who dedicated their lives to a career they love. When it comes to child abuse and domestic violence, there is no middle ground." Nooyi goes on to say PepsiCo has a long-standing relationship with the NFL that will continue. And she is confident, she says, that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will do the right thing. But she certainly stopped short of saying we're going to stop paying and we're going to start making bigger threats. Instead, she says he's a good guy.

All right, so my panel joining me to talk about this is Keith Reed, the former senior editor for ESPN the magazine and a sports business analyst as well, along with CNN's legal analyst Mel Robbins and Paul Callan.

All right, so Mel, first to you.

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BANFIELD: These strong statements have come out from other sponsors as well -

ROBBINS: Uh-huh.

BANFIELD: But there's no show me the money part.

ROBBINS: Yes.

BANFIELD: There's always, this is terrible. Chicken Little. But then they don't really put their money where their mouths are.

ROBBINS: Yes.

BANFIELD: Does that matter?

ROBBINS: Well, yes, it does matter. I mean Radisson pulled their sponsorship. Individual corporate brands like Nike have pulled their relationships with players. And it's great that you've got the CEO of PepsiCo coming out, but they're paying the NFL money. It's not like they're earning money from the NFL. So you need to cut off the corporate dollars if you really want to send a message, Ash.

BANFIELD: OK. So the message isn't enough.

ROBBINS: No. No.

BANFIELD: The repugnant and awful and everything, all that sort of very strident language, not enough.

OK, I want to show you guys the front and rear pages, because they're sometimes just as important, of some of the New York papers. I've got my hand covering this one, so hold on. Eli Manning, he's had it. He's had enough. And he was very vocal about it saying, you know, man to men, that's enough. Players, we can't have this.

And, Keith, I want to get your take on whether this is going to be the most powerful part in this fight, when fellow players stand up and start, you know, calling out the actions of their colleagues, as opposed to Roger Goodell, who's been silent?

KEITH REED, FORMER ESPN SENIOR EDITOR: Yes, I honestly think that in this case it's kind of easy for Eli Manning to do that, right? I mean that's the easiest thing in the world for a player of his statute, the starting quarterback, Super Bowl winning twice quarterback for the New York Giants to come out and say, hey, don't hit kids and don't hit women. That's a pretty easy thing to say under these circumstances. Is it going to mean anything over the long term, especially to the guys who are not in his locker room, who don't necessarily - who don't play with him? I don't know that it will. There are guys who --

BANFIELD: But it's the first - I mean, really, we rarely hear this.

REED: Sure.

BANFIELD: So it's sort of a first step, isn't it?

REED: It's - it's a -

BANFIELD: There have been plenty of winning players before who had an easy shot and didn't take it.

REED: Sure. Absolutely.

There was a story that came out I think today online I think, it was "Time" magazine, took a shot at Tom Brady who is the most famous quarterback in the league, who said, you know, Brady has refused to address the issue. I don't think it's Tom Brady's responsibility to address the issue. It's not having his locker room. He can't dictate what these other players --

ROBBINS: But it's his conduct.

REED: What other players.

ROBBINS: But he also - Craft came out and supported Goodell, so he's not going to step out of line.

REED: And he's not going to - he's going to play the company line because that's who Tom Brady is and that's what's that New England Patriots organization does. But you're right, it is his product but is it his responsibility to govern the off-the-field activities and the off-the-field behavior of every player, that's almost 2,000 guys in the NFL, is that Tom Brady's responsibility? I don't think that it is.

ROBBINS: Well, except, Keith, the one thing to keep in mind, though, is that as a leader, the guys that are in trouble right now are casting a huge shadow over the NFL.

REED: Sure.

ROBBINS: So, if I'm in the NFL and I'm a super star, I absolutely would be like, this is ridiculous, guys.

Knock it off. Because you're tarnishing the whole brand. You're just taking it all in.

CALLAN: I am.

ROBBINS: Quietly.

CALLAN: I'm waiting for the legal angle here.

ROBBINS: Much like Roger Goodell is doing right now.

CALLAN: That's right.

ROBBINS: When I said he's been silent, look, he talked a little bit, days and days and days ago, but this juggernaut has been rolling out of control and he's barely coming out of his house. This is a problem, isn't it? If you're talking about leadership? CALLAN: Well, yeah. I think it's a problem and I've said it from the

beginning. He's been a problem but, of course, he's been so successful from a financial standpoint that early on, everybody was saying nobody is going to touch the guy. But you know, the NFL is being struck by what hit other profession a long time ago. Even the legal profession for that matter. I remember as a young prosecutor when I would stand up in court next to a woman who had been abused who wanted to drop the charges the next morning when her husband gets out of jail, you know, in the early days they used to be dropped if the woman wanted to do that. But times have changed now. We know that abused women go on to be abused again, go on to be killed, and I don't know where the NFL has been on this, but everybody else seems to have caught up with this idea that it's no longer a slap on the wrist crime.

ROBBINS: Unfortunately, I have got to leave it there. I just got so many other topics on the agenda today. But by the way, full open invitation to Eli Manning and anyone else in the NFL, if you want to come on this platform I will give you a load of air time to say your peace and say what you think your brothers in the league should and shouldn't be doing. Keith, Paul, Mel, thank you, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

REED: Thank you.

ROBBINS: A new development in the shooting death of an unarmed teenager, Michael Brown. In an unusual move, the officer who shot and killed him in Ferguson, Missouri, has testified before the grand jury. The grand jury is deciding whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson for a crime and typically defendants don't really do this. So, why do you suppose he did? Legal view on that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: It's fairly rare for a grand jury to hear from the target of an investigation, a defendant. But that is apparently what's happened in Ferguson, Missouri. The "St. Louis Post Dispatch" is reporting that Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, testified just yesterday for almost four hours. Now make no mistake, the officer didn't have to testify. He chose to. And the prosecutors in this case had to extend the invitation as well. So, I want to bring back our CNN legal analyst Paul Callan and Mel Robbins. There's much ado being made about the notion that this officer sat in that chair for four hours. What do you make of it, Paul?

CALLAN: Well, it is unusual for a defendant to appear in the grand jury. Usually defense lawyers say hey, he'll make his statement in front of a jury, because he's going to get indicted anyway, I'm not going to put him in front of a grand jury. The decision to put this officer in front of the grand jury, though, was an important one because, obviously, the defense thinks he's a compelling witness and he's going to convince these jurors not to indict. The four hours says to me, that he was subjected to grueling cross-examination. Remember, there's no defense attorney.

BANFIELD: You don't know that it's grueling.

CALLAN: Well, I'm speculating. Nobody knows because the grand jury is secret. But I can - having presented case as myself, I can tell you with no judge in the room if the prosecutor wants to go after you aggressively he can and the grand jurors can ask questions as well.

BANFIELD: And you don't have your lawyers with you. You are on your own, right?

CALLAN: He's sitting outside the door.

ROBBINS: Yeah, but ...

CALLAN: You're allowed to ..

ROBBINS: But you have a police officer who's probably also testified before grand juries before.

CALLAN: Yeah, but never when he's the subject of the investigation and he can go out and ask his lawyer a question but it looks bad to the grand jury.

ROBBINS: Sure.

CALLAN: So, I would always say to a client, hey, don't come out to see me unless you really have to.

BANFIELD: Unless you're desperate. So, the competing wisdom here, Mel.

ROBBINS: Right.

BANFIELD: Is that it could be that yes, perhaps the truth is so compelling and the innocence of this man is so compelling that he could carry it to the grand jury. The other way of thinking is that these people are all in bed with one another, these two prosecutors are probably so friendly with this police officer that just with the tone of voice and the way they ask their questions they can convince this grand jury - these guys.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBBINS: Well, you know, I don't know. This is St. Louis. They may not even know this police officer personally. So, I don't know that they're necessarily going to be friendly to him. But when I think about why he's going in, the reason why is this case will hinge, Ashleigh, on whether or not his claims of self-defense are credible. Yes, there are seven eyewitnesses that we know of that all claim that they saw Michael Brown with his hands up and that's hugely compelling. However, in the state of Missouri, a police officer can use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon if he has probable cause that he's fleeing the scene of a violent felony. And --

BANFIELD: Even if his hands are up and he's surrendering.

ROBBINS: Yes, and even ... BANFIELD: I have a hard time with that.

ROBBINS: But that is the law. And the fact is, that if this police officer is credible and convincing, that he -- that the assault happened which would be a violent felony, then under the law he may be justified.

CALLAN: Let me just say this, though, about what's going on here. Because this is - what's very unusual about this is, if the prosecutor wants to get a conviction and I've presented many cases to the grand jury, all he had to do was present two or three witnesses who are --

BANFIELD: Correct. In fact, there is two women are prosecuting this case by the way.

CALLAN: Just present the three strongest eyewitnesses and then submit the case to the grand jury. Remember the prosecutor controls the submission of evidence. So he could have done that if he wanted a slam dunk indictment. Instead, the prosecutor has chosen to do the politically safe thing which is, I'm going to present everything. OK. They have said we've put every witness in front of the grand jury who's come forward and he's going to throw it to the grand jury and say to them, it's up to you.

ROBBINS: And you know what else he announced yesterday? That if there's no indictment in this case, he will immediately release the transcripts and the audio which is also hugely ...

BANFIELD: That's awful.

CALLAN: But that's what the grand jury is for.

BANFIELD: Yes.

CALLAN: The grand jury exists for this very reason so that it's not up to the prosecutor, it's up to ordinary citizens to make this very, very important decision. And I'm glad that he's going this route and he's going to release the transcript and everybody can judge whether it was a fair presentation.

BANFIELD: And just a fine point. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but I think in this case so much matters, the prosecutors are inside that grand jury room are two women, one white, one black, and then, of course, the makeup that we've already announced before, it's a mixed jury as well. But both of you, clearly this is not over. Three African-Americans and nine Caucasians on that grand jury and wouldn't be amazing if we got to read all the transcripts. Mel, Paul, thank you.

Back to one of our top stories the terror group ISIS, they use bombs, and guns, and knives, you've seen all of that, you've seen the slickly produced propaganda violence to instill fear, but there's another weapon that they use and it really doesn't get talked about much. But it is as devastating. That's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)