Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

U.S., Arab Partners Hit ISIS in Raqqa; Eight Missile Strikes Against Khorasan Targets; Beginning of a Long, Sustained Campaign Against ISIS

Aired September 23, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: That's it for us. "LEGAL VIEW " with Ashleigh Banfield starts now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

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

Forty-eight warplanes, 200 missiles and bombs. It is a whole new war against ISIS.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Last night, on my orders, America's armed forces began strikes against ISIL targets in Syria. Today, the American people give thanks for the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform, including the pilots who flew these missions with the courage and professionalism that we've come to expect from the finest military that the world's ever known.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: On his way to rally the U.N. General Assembly against the terror group that calls itself Islamic State, President Obama spoke about the non-diplomatic effort that broke new ground. And, boy, did it ever, just a few hours earlier. The United States and five Sunni Arab partners, yes, five Arab partners, hit ISIS in its self-styled Syrian capital of Raqqa.

And there are so many significant things in that one sentence. We'll spend much of this hour reporting on them. But separately, and at the same time, the United States alone struck a different group in Syria, an al Qaeda offshoot called Khorasan, that officials say was plotting attacks on U.S. and other western targets. Those strikes occurred near the Syrian city of Aleppo. And through it all, ISIS kept up the propaganda war with a brand-new video of British hostage John Cantlie warning the west that fighting ISIS will lead to a mess not seen since Vietnam.

We knew the United States would somehow, sometime hit ISIS in Syria, but the strikes against the Khorasan group, whose existence the United States really only publicly acknowledged last week, that came as a total surprise. CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr joins me live now with that. All right, so, Barbara, the Khorasan group, why now and why alongside

these strikes?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is a group in western Syria, near Aleppo, clear on the other side of the country from where they struck ISIS. They had been watching them for some time by all accounts and believe that these al Qaeda operatives were in the final stages of executing a plan to attack U.S. and/or western targets. Not a lot of specificity about what that target was, but the intelligence was showing that they were in the stages of the ability to make non-detectable explosives and put them in very common items such as electronics or toiletry items, the type of thing that the U.S. worried could make it past airport screening, obviously. And the concern was if they let this go on too long, it might become even more difficult to detect them.

So there were a number of U.S. missile strikes, eight in all, against Khorasan targets last night in this western part of Syria going after their munition sites, their command and control, even going after what they hope was their leadership. They're trying to assess all of that right now and figure out exactly what they did accomplish against Khorasan, even as they are still assessing what they accomplished against ISIS.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So, Barbara, the issue of this imminent threat that the Pentagon says Khorasan is posing to the United States, a little later in the program I'm going to get into the significance of that when it comes to making the legal case for actually taking these strikes with the U.N. Security Council. But the imminent notion, have they not been planning this for a long time? I mean was this, this spur of the moment, yet it's so imminent, that it all seems to come very conveniently at the same time?

STARR: Well, why did they decide to do it now? We're told that part of the - you know, carry out the strikes now? While the world was watching ISIS, perhaps this was a bit of a surprise maneuver against Khorasan. Nobody was particularly had their eye on them. They may not have been expecting it.

But the U.S. was planning this because they used tomahawk missiles. That requires some level of preprogramming the target into the missile. It is guided to the target by GPS satellite coordinates. So they had to know what exactly they were going after.

This all becomes very interesting because it would have taken them some time to get all of this arranged and they did it very, very quietly. It does raise the question, if they thought it was so imminent, were they able to wait? You know, should they have gone three days earlier? We don't really know the answer to that question. Right now, all very closely held by the administration.

STARR: All right, Barbara Starr, thank you. If you could stand by for just a moment, I want to go to the United Nations now and chief CNN national security correspondent Jim Sciutto. So, Jim, talk to me a little bit about the timing. This is the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. And that cannot be a coincidence.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, actually, the administration says, no, there is no connection in the timing. In fact, a senior administration official saying a short time ago that the only things that factored into the timing of this decision were, one, concerns of military planners, that is, did they have confidence they had the intelligence necessary to find the right targets and strike them. And, two, were the coalition partners ready? That is, the five Arab nations that took part in these strikes, four of them Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, dropping bombs, taking part in kinetic air strikes. But they say no connection to the timing of the U.N.G.A.

That said, Ashleigh, it's just hard to discount the contract here. The U.N., a peacemaking body, and you have the U.S. now at war in three countries in the Middle East, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. And in Syria now, the U.S. bringing along really just a surprising, unusual coalition of these Arab nations. One Arab nation -- five Arab nations, in fact, taking part in military action against another Arab nation, really remarkable. But the administration saying that the timing not connected. That this was purely a military and intelligence decision.

BANFIELD: So Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, is this the beginning or is that it? And when I say that, clearly the Pentagon has been very clear that the air strikes, this campaign will continue. What about rolling this out to other Arab coalition members?

SCIUTTO: Well, I'll tell you, as these Arab countries have begun to acknowledge publicly their participation in this, a line in a statement from the United Arab Emirates caught my eye because it said that the United Arab Emirates warplanes took part in their, quote, "first strikes" against ISIS targets, telegraphing there in that statement that this is just the first and they will continue to participate in these strikes.

Then you heard from U.S. officials at the Pentagon a short time ago saying in so many words that this is just the beginning of a long, sustained campaign. And, Ashleigh, look at Iraq. It's six weeks, nearly 200 strikes into the U.S. air campaign against ISIS in Iraq. During that time, while those strikes have been considered successful as well, the U.S. and its partners on the ground have not been able to gain back a single square inch of territory in northern Iraq from ISIS. They've been able to hold back ISIS advances against Baghdad, against Erbil, but not to gain back territory. And in Iraq, you have some 300,000 ground forces on your side, 120,000 Kurdish fighters, 200,000 Iraqi fighters, although it's the U.S. assessment only about half of them are capable of doing very much.

Meanwhile, in Syria, you really have no partners on the ground yet. The U.S. just beginning to train some 5,000 fighters there. That gives you an indication of how long the air campaign is going to have to sustain to have an effect. It's going to be needed for some time and I think Americans who are watching this now should be prepared for years, not weeks or months.

BANFIELD: All right, Jim Sciutto, live for us. Thank you for that.

And Jim was alluding to this. While the president has built this international coalition to carry out these bombings, there's something else afoot as well. Does it have anything to do legally with this notion that there was an imminent threat? What about the authorization that this country's supposed to give its president to do this sort of thing? Congress is on vacation. So where do we stand legally with the authority to strike? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: In case you missed President Obama's remarks on this major escalation of the war against ISIS, a war now actively joined by five Arab allies, going to play you those comments now. The president spoke on the South Lawn as he was on route to New York and the U.N. General Assembly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Last night, on my orders, America's armed forces began strikes against ISIL targets in Syria. Today, the American people give thanks for the extraordinary service of our men and women in uniform, including the pilots who flew these missions with the courage and professionalism that we've come to expect from the finest military that the world's ever known.

Earlier this month, I outlined for the American people our strategy to confront the threat posed by the terrorist group known as ISIL. I made clear that as part of this campaign, the United States would take action against targets in both Iraq and Syria so that these terrorists can't find safe haven anywhere.

I also made clear that America would act as part of a broad coalition. And that's exactly what we've done. We were joined in this action by our friends and partners -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar. America's proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with these nations on behalf of our common security.

The strength of this coalition makes it clear to the world that this is not America's fight alone. Above all, the people and governments of the Middle East are rejecting ISIL and standing up for the peace and security that the people of the region and the world deserve.

Meanwhile, we will move forward with our plan, supported by bipartisan majorities in Congress, to ramp up our effort to train and equip the Syrian opposition who are the best counterweight to ISIL and the Assad regime. And more broadly, over 40 nations have offered to help in this comprehensive effort to confront this terrorist threat, to take out terrorist targets, to train and equip Iraqi and Syrian opposition fighters who are going up against ISIL on the ground, to cut off ISIL's financing, to counter its hateful ideology and to stop the flow of fighters into and out of the region.

Last night we also took strikes to disrupt plotting against the United States and our allies by seasoned al Qaeda operatives in Syria who are known as the Khorasan group. And, once again, it must be clear to anyone who would plot against America and try to do Americans harm that we will not tolerate safe havens for terrorists who threaten our people.

I've spoken to leaders in Congress and I'm pleased that there is bipartisan support for the actions that we're taking. America's always stronger when we stand united. And that unity sends a powerful message to the world that we will do what's necessary to defend our country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Congress doesn't happen to be in session right now. The members left town after approving U.S. training and weapons for Syrian rebels, but without directly authorizing U.S. military attacks. So are those attacks that we've been seeing the pictures of, that began last night in Syria, are they legal?

I'm joined now by retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton and by renowned defense attorney, civil rights activist, professor and author Alan Dershowitz.

Colonel, first to you. This is -- it was astounding to hear some of the news about the new organization that's being targeted alongside ISIS. And to some it's still astounding that this kind of action can take place given the fact that this is not directly related to 9/11, which was the last authorization that the Congress gave.

How do you reconcile this?

COLONEL CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RETIRED), FORMER MEMBER, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: Well, Ashleigh, I think it's going to be difficult to reconcile those from a legal standpoint. I'll let Professor Dershowitz talk about those aspects.

But I think that in this particular case what the president has done is basically used the authorizations that were in effect in 2001 and extended those to this particular situation.

So you can make the argument, in particular with Khorasan, that it is an offshoot of al Qaeda, there's a direct lineal descent between Khorasan and al Qaeda in core in Pakistan, and that's the Ayman al- Zawahiri group.

So those kinds of relationship are basically what the administration has been using in order to say, OK, we can go forward. We can do this. And we can go ahead with military actions and also make sure that we are protecting the homeland in the same way the post-9/11 resolutions had the effect of doing as well.

BANFIELD: So, Professor Dershowitz, maybe you could weigh in on this. I'm having to count a lot of hops, skips, and jumps and tangents to get from the direct language in the first authorization in 2001, specifically those who were responsible for the attacks on 9/11, to these guys. Specifically, there was one guy who's the leader of Khorasan who was 19 when that happened. How do you get from that to what we're seeing last night?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ATTORNEY, AUTHOR, PROFESSOR: Well, there are two separate legal problems the United States faces. One, was this authorized by Congress, and, two, is it authorized by Charter Article 51 of the United Nations, which requires that an armed attack have already occurred?

As to the first, Congress is not in session. It was an imminent attack, we're told, and so the president does have the authority to preempt an imminent attack. Whether he has the authority to do a well- planned attack on ISIS without specific authorization from Congress -- Congress knew he was going to do it and could have stopped him, but they didn't do that. So I think he's OK.

BANFIELD: Can I just ask you, if armed -- this armed incident that you're talking about, could that have been the executions of those two Americans?

DERSHOWITZ: Sure. That's an act of war.

BANFIELD: That's enough to be an act of war.

DERSHOWITZ: That's an act of war. There's no question that taking an American citizen and beheading him on television is a casus belli, an act of war, but it's not something that requires an imminent response.

As far as the U.N. charter is concerned, although the language is very narrow -- an armed attack has to have occurred -- it was interpreted after the 1967 Israeli war to include an imminent threat of an attack.

And so I think the president's OK on the attack that was imminent. He's not so OK on the Syrian incursion which is long term. He doesn't have the specific authorization of Syria, although obviously Syria -- the government is thrilled with this.

BANFIELD: Colonel, you've been at this game a long time, so I think you've probably seen a lot of this happen before.

But when I saw the language about Khorasan having this imminent threat, it almost seemed as though it came out of the blue, but it was right around the corner.

Something was going to happen here in America on the homeland to American citizens, and then, all of a sudden, we see these air strikes against their positions in Syria.

Did this look like par for the course action, given what you've been through in your career?

LEIIGHTON: Ashleigh, I would say it's a bit unusual, but what it does show me is that there was intelligence that they used, and they felt that based on the intelligence that they had gathered on Khorasan, and they knew about the ideology of the group, they knew about it makeup -- they also knew about its intent -- and in this particular case, you're looking at the intent of the group and what they believed the possibility of execution was.

So based on the intent that Khorasan had voiced, they knew that Khorasan intended to attack targets in western Europe and in the United States and they felt that it was necessary to go ahead and preempt those attacks.

So, in essence, what you're seeing is a doctrine of preemption being put into place here, and that is, in essence, what they used in order to effect this.

BANFIELD: OK, and I just want to make note that, before show time, we got a copy of the letter that President Obama just sent to the speaker of the house, effectively to Congress, notifying Congress of the action last night, effectively saying, I have also ordered U.S. armed forces to conduct a systematic campaign of air strikes and other necessary actions against these terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

And, just quickly, presumably one of these is on the way to the security council presumably as well --

DERSHOWITZ: It has to be. Under Article 51, you have to notify the security council.

Now, the intelligence that they're gathering is coming interestingly not from one of the five countries or the United States. It's coming from Israel, so there are really six countries helping the United States. But one of them's doing it very --

BANFIELD: Real covertly. Yeah.

DERSHOWITZ: Very covertly. And of course what the United States is doing, the way they're attacking ISIS, is exactly the way Israel did it during the Hamas war.

They're going after their electric grid, going after their resources, financial, and yet the world condemns Israel when it does it and praises the United States. And, you know, I have a new book out called "Terror Tunnels" where I make the point about the double standard that's applied to Israel and to other countries in the world.

BANFIELD: I want to let people know that's an e-book as well.

Alan Dershowitz, always good to have you, thank you so much.

And, Colonel Cedric Leighton, if you could stick around with us as well, this bombing campaign marks the first time the United States has bombed inside Syria. And several Arab countries also were along for that ride, dropping bombs too.

So what's the significance of exactly who did what and who did nothing? We're going to talk about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BANFIELD: Perhaps the biggest surprise coming out of the U.S. air strikes in Syria last night is the Arab countries that stepped up to help the United States, five of them.

Five Arab nations, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, along with Jordan, participated in that action, flying their jets right alongside American jets. It is an unprecedented coalition, sending a very powerful message to ISIS.

What message is it, how strong is it, and might the message change? Let's bring in CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour and CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen to talk about the significance of this partnership.

First to you, Christiane, were you surprised at these five?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I think everybody was. It's unprecedented that that many Arab countries are actually involved in a bombing campaign of another Arab Muslim nation.

So it was as much a military alliance as it is a political, cultural, religious, and ideological message that's being sent to the region. Qatar may not have taken part in the bombing, but they're all involved.

I'm going to be speaking to the Bahraini foreign minister in about an hour, and we'll know more.

BANFIELD: Yeah, Qatar certainly not announcing that at this point. Saudi Arabia not announcing it either, but our Jim Sciutto has cleared that they have actually been involved in the actual bombings themselves.

Peter Bergen, is it the beginning of, say, a broader coalition of other Arab states? Others might witness and say now it's safer to join the coalition?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I don't really know, Ashleigh, but I think the really significant one is Saudi Arabia, which for its own internal political reasons has finally, sort of really got a handle on a problem that it knew was going to come back and potentially bite it.

Earlier this year in February, we had fatwas from very senior -- religious rulings from very senior clerics, basically making it against Islam to go to Syria to fight. We then had the Saudi government under the leadership of the new interior minister, Prince Nayef, basically criminalizing going to Syria.

We've had about a thousand Saudis going to Syria to fight, and of course the concern was that they would come back to Saudi Arabia. And we saw very much the same movie once before, Ashleigh, which was Saudis going to fight in Iraq. They came back in 2003, 2004. They launched basically a mini-insurgency against the Saudi regime in which dozens and dozens of Saudis were killed, and the Saudi government came down very hard on them.

So basically we're seeing kind of a rerun of what we saw during the early years of the Iraq War where Saudi Arabia, for its own internal political reasons, is taking a very strong approach to this.

BANFIELD: So perhaps as loud as the message is who's with the coalition, those who are not with speak volumes as well -- Turkey not taking part, Britain not taking part, France not taking part.

AMANPOUR: Well, not taking part in the bombing of Syria. France has already bombed ISIS targets in Iraq. Britain has not, but the prime minister, David Cameron, is here in New York at the UNGA and is going to speak more about it, supports what's going on right now.

Both have pledged to arm, equip, train, either the Peshmerga and the Iraqi forces or, indeed, the Free Syrian Army forces, which are going to be required as the ground force against ISIS.

BANFIELD: And Turkey --

AMANPOUR: Turkey, it's a NATO country. No, and that was --

BANFIELD: All of them were released --

AMANPOUR: They were, but we don't know the deal made for that release. But NATO of course -- Turkey of course is usually a solid NATO ally.

BANFIELD: Yeah. And I'm only assuming there are other NATO allies that may join in after this.

AMANOUR: We just don't know. We just don't know. But it is going to be a long, long haul. That's for sure.

BANFIELD: As is your commute over to the United Nations, because this is Manhattan during UNGA, so I know you have to go. Thank you, Christiane. Appreciate it.

And, Peter Bergen, thank you as well. And you're going to be able to see all of Christiane's interviews with the Bahrainian foreign minister -- all of her interviews, in fact, are always on Amanpour.com.

Thank you to both of you.

The United States and its Arab allies on the attack against ISIS, Tomahawk missiles, dozens of military aircraft, and hundreds of bombs, we're going to break down exactly what the firepower was that was used and what is going to continue to be used to try to defeat that terror group.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)