Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

Military Announces 21-Day Quarantine; White House Computers Targeted; Ferguson PD Chief May Step Down

Aired October 29, 2014 - 11:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: The White House hacked, the big question is, who did it? Is there a Russian connection? How did they get into a network that you would think is one of the most secure in the world?

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN CO-ANCHOR: And what went wrong? A huge explosion over Virginia rains rocket parts all over. Thankfully this was unmanned, but what does it mean for the future of the space program?

BERMAN: And a possible major development in Ferguson, Missouri. CNN learns the police chief may be on his way out as the city braces for word on a possible indictment.

Hello, everyone, I'm John Berman.

PEREIRA: I'm Michaela Pereira, great to have you with us. Those stories and more ahead @THISHOUR.

BERMAN: All right, we do have some breaking news just in on Ebola. Just a few minutes ago, we learned that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced a 21-day quarantine upon return for all military personnel who serve in Ebola-stricken areas of West Africa.

PEREIRA: Now, it's really important to point out that this policy for returning military personnel creates a separate set of rules than what the White House has pushed for for civilian health-care workers.

I want to turn to our Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. We'll also bring in Dr. Frank Esper, infectious disease specialist.

I think, Barbara, we'll start with you at the Pentagon. Why this double standard different set of guidelines?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Good morning. This was expected. Everybody had been waiting for it.

What the secretary has ordered is a quarantine for everybody. But they don't really even know at this point how they'll do it. They're going to take 15 days to figure out how to implement it.

Where do they put people? How do they monitor them? Nobody has the answers to any of that. And then in 45 days, they're going to review and see if it's really necessary. So why are they doing this?

BERMAN: Hey, Barbara, Chuck Hagel, the defense secretary, is speaking about it right now. Let's listen in.

CHUCK HAGEL, DEFENSE SECRETARY: ... for our men and women would be returning from West Africa.

That policy was put in place by the chief of staff of the army a couple days ago for General Williams and 10 of his associates who are now back at their base in Italy. And what I said in response was, give me within 15 days the operational specifics of how that would work, and then I believe we should review that policy within 45 days.

The fact is the military will have more Americans in Liberia than any other department. That's number one. Number two, our people are younger. The cohorts are different. They are not volunteers.

And this is also a policy that was discussed in great detail by the communities, by the families of our military men and women, and they very much wanted a safety valve on this, so that's essentially what the directive says.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great. Thank you. So that's the news of the day. Let's talk about broader pictures. Steve in his introduction mentioned all the parts in the world --

BERMAN: All right, that was Chuck Hagel. He's speaking at the Ideas Forum. It's essentially a wonk conference in the Washington, D.C., area, but he just made the announcement, talking about this 21-day quarantine for returning military personnel from those three West African nations dealing with Ebola right now.

Barbara Star, our Pentagon correspondent, is with us. Barbara, give us context. Why did we get this announcement today from the defense secretary?

STARR: Yeah. Let's unpack some this and explain what's going on behind the scenes here. Several military officials are telling us that it was last Friday in the tank, the secure room in the Pentagon, the chiefs all met and decided they wanted a quarantine.

Why did they decide this? What we know now is that they felt -- they didn't have any new medical data. They had no new scientific data. We are assured of that. But they had a lot of anxieties about all of this.

Their feeling were that families were concerned, that some of the military communities were concerned, where these troops would be coming back, but really most importantly to them, large number of young troops, very young people serving on this mission who have no health-care training, no medical experience.

And to be very frank I have been told by several officials this morning, that chiefs were concerned if they left it to be a voluntary monitoring of your temperature, these young troops might not do it. They might come home, go out with their friends, and basically the chiefs felt they couldn't trust them. That is the very perhaps sensitive bottom line here.

Secretary Hagel did not want to go the fuel route of a mandatory 21- day quarantine for everybody. He wanted some caveats on it. He knows the politics. He knows the White House does not want this country basically in a quarantine mode, so he went for the middle ground.

He said, OK, you can have it, we'll figure out how to do it, but in 45 days, we're going to review it and really see if it's absolutely necessary. So there's a lot of very high-level, internal Pentagon politics here.

PEREIRA: And it's so interesting, Barbara, because so many people on our air have talked about the fact that they are having to sort of adapt as we go with this.

Dr. Esper, let me turn to you, because we are so quickly reminded by medical experts that we have on our air that we have to stick to the science of this when we're dealing with Ebola.

Yet we hear the military reacting essentially to-to-anxiety within their military families and within their personnel, and it feels like a bit of a disconnect. Do you think that's troublesome?

DR. FRANK ESPER, UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CASE MEDICAL CENTER: There is a difference between what we see in military versus what we see in civilian when it comes from infections.

I think what a lot of the joint chiefs were reacting to is a history of infections within the military, where we actually can see entire forces that are incapacitated just from mild diseases like diarrheal disease or influenza, where it really inhibits their capabilities, because these individuals, these brave soldiers, are working in very close quarter, they're living in very close quarters, and they can spread infections much, much easier than individuals living in the suburbs and the cities.

So this is something that had to take into account, a specific, certain set of circumstances. And I think that's why they're reacting to it.

But it's also important for them -- or for us to realize they're also saying, this is how we're starting. We're starting very conservative, but in a few days, we're actually going to revisit this to see whether or not it's needed.

BERMAN: Barbara, I want to bring you back in here, because one part of this that I'm fascinated by is how are they going to do this and what this practically means.

You spent a lot of time with the military. I spent my share of time embedded with them also. You don't get places fast a lot of the time, so when does the clock start tick? Because in some cases from the moment they leave West Africa to the time that they might be back with their family members that might not be much shorter than 21 day days.

STARR: Yeah, that's a really good point. What we know is, while they're in West Africa, their temperature is continually monitored. They're essentially in a military-controlled environment. So their temperature is monitored. They are not going home if they show any symptoms. They will be asymptomatic getting on that plane.

But it's that notion that, for the next 21 days, what if they did develop symptoms? And we already know right now -- we brought that story to everyone yesterday that a two-star general and his team is already in quarantine in Italy. There's going to be 75 of them quarantined in Italy by this weekend.

None of them are showing symptoms, but they are ordered by the army to stay in this building and stay inside.

This is some of -- a lot of this is going to wind up being driven by practical logistics. You eventually are going to see perhaps 4,000 troops over there. It's going to be very difficult for the U.S. military to put 4,000 people in quarantine.

The simple question of where they put them, how they house them, how this would all work is just is for the Pentagon right now an overwhelming prospect. They absolutely don't know how they would do it.

PEREIRA: So many practicalities to be worked out.

Barbara, thank you so much.

Quickly, I want to turn to our White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski. Interesting, we heard the president sort of urging caution and also reminding us that we should treat these people going to the front lines in West Africa as people doing God's work.

Yet there are going to be some of this optics that people will struggle with. We understand from Dr. Esper's point of view that maybe there is reason that the military is treated differently than us civilians, but there will be some that will have a problem with the optics, no?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. We've kind of heard different explanations at different times as this has evolved because they keep emphasizing it needs to be based on the science.

So now you have people who directly worked and cared for victims of this disease in Africa coming back and not being immediately quarantined, but then you have members of the military that came into contact with zero patients and are not providing any medical care, and they go into immediate quarantine. That's an enormous gap there in reaction.

And also the White House and Pentagon and other levels of government were supposedly so closely coordinating on the response. So this question came up in great detail yesterday to the White House. Why this big discrepancy? Why the difference in treatment? Does the White House disagree with the Pentagon if it doesn't seem to be based on the same science that the White House keeps relying upon?

But the White House response is this, that you have thousands of members of the military coming back, you have only dozens per week of health-care workers. They say it is good to monitor them, but you want to do it on a case-by-case basis.

And with the military and those numbers, it's just not feasible to do it on a case-by-case basis. That's the White House's take.

BERMAN: Interesting, this new policy now in place.

PEREIRA: Really, really interesting.

BERMAN: Chuck Hagel announcing it, 21-day quarantine for military personnel. As Barbarba Starr points out, that could be as many as 4,000 U.S. military personnel by the time all is said and done.

PEREIRA: But key to this is they realize at some point they're going to have to look at it, reevaluate, and continue to sort of tweak these measures.

Our big thanks to Michelle Kosinski, Barbara Starr, and of course, Dr. Esper for joining us. Thanks so much, team.

BERMAN: All right, ahead for us, @THISHOUR, Pope Francis raising eyebrows. Did you hear what he said about magic? Did you hear what he said about evolution? A lot of people talking about that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: Who is trying to break into the White House computer system? Apparently, somebody is trying to get inside. An official tells CNN that some networks had to be taken down to protect against threats.

BERMAN: Officials are trying to figure out right now who might be responsible. The "Washington Post" reports this morning there could be a Russian connection.

Joining us to talk about this is Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector- general for the Office of Homeland Security, and, Clark, one might think the computer systems in and around the White House would be among the most secure ...

PEREIRA: One might think that.

BERMAN: ... on earth.

So how could bit that someone hacks in?

CLARK KENT ERVIN, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, that's actually right, John. There's no question that the White House is among the most secure, but it's not impenetrable. There are attacks against the White House every day, or virtually every day, and other government systems, as well. But this one is a horse of a different color. Apparently, according to news reports, it was persistent, it was sustained and we're good at attribution, so it's pretty clear, at least there's a consensus, that this was emanating from Russia. And if it, in fact, did emanate from Russia, that makes sense. There's no question but that Putin is at a minimum, an adversary of the United States, if not a downright enemy.

PEREIRA: So help us understand what points to it being from the Kremlin, as "The Washington Post" -- elaborate for people that might have missed that reporting.

ERVIN: Sure. Right. A couple of things. First of all, we're very good at tracking exactly where threats come from. That's called attribution. So the signs point to Russia being the source for this, point one. Then we have to put that against the context. The context, of course, is this geopolitical cat and mouse game that's going on between the United States and Russia around the world. It's clear that Putin is testing us and he's using every means available to him, short of war, to contest America's supremacy in the world geopolitically, and so those two things together suggest that this is emanating from there. We are --

BERMAN: Are we doing this, too, Clark? I mean, sorry, you know, you think this is the Russian military, you think this is a Kremlin thing, not a Russian mobster thing, they're the ones who often break into the banks and financial institutions, but the implication you seem to be saying here is it's most likely directed by the Russian regime, as it were, and that makes me wonder, is this the type of thing that the United States tries to do when it can?

ERVIN: Well I think that's a very good question, John, and the answer is, yes. We are certainly capable of offensive operations. We've done that, notably, in Iran, to slow down the Iranian nuclear program. There are news reports from time to time that Cyber Command DoD is working to figure out the rules of the road with regard to offensive operations, generally.

My bet is we're doing some of that with regard to the Russians and the Chinese, because they're engaging in industrial-size espionage, both economically and militarily. My bet is, as I say, we're doing some of it. I don't know that we're doing enough, unless we raise the cost to Russia and to China for engaging in these kinds activities. It seems to me it's going to continue to happen and pose an increasingly important danger to our country.

PEREIRA: Clark, since I have you, since we have you here with us, I want to ask for your reaction to the fact we know security is being beefed up now around several federal buildings around the nation.

BERMAN: Nearly 10,000.

PEREIRA: Yeah, a substantial amount. Meanwhile though, the Department of Homeland Security is saying it's not tied to a specific threat. Do you buy that?

ERVIN: Well, you know, I think the way to square that circle, Michaela, is that there's probably no specific intelligence saying this particular building and this particular city on this particular day in this particular way is being targeted, but against the backdrop of what happened in Canada last week and ISIS having called upon its followers around the world to target individuals, military installations, political installations of allies of the United States, the United States itself and our allies around the world, it's perfectly understandable that we would take these measures.

The bad news is, actually, that there have been concerns about FPS in the past, the Federal Protective Service, that's the component of the Department of Homeland Security that is in charge of security at these buildings. There are only about 900 full-time law enforcement personnel, but there are about 15,000 contract guards who guard these facilities, and they're uneven in terms of their quality. So I've been among those in the past, calling for at least looking at federalizing the guard force because of the importance of the security of these buildings around the country.

BERMAN: Nearly 10,000 of them will have their security increased starting now. Clark Kent Ervin, thank you for being with us. Appreciate it.

ERVIN: Great to be with you both.

PEREIRA: Ahead @THISHOUR, a possible major development in Ferguson, Missouri. Sources tell CNN that controversial police chief, that he is getting ready to step down. What does it all mean?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Possible dramatic development from Ferguson, Missouri. Overnight, CNN learned that the city's police chief is expected to step down. That word comes just days before we could get news about whether a grand jury will issue an indictment for officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Michael Brown.

PEREIRA: Chief Thomas Jackson apologized last month for how his department handled the initial investigation into Michael Brown's death, but calls for him to step down certainly have not abated and protests over Brown's death continue.

Our Justice Reporter Evan Perez joins us now from D.C. I'm curious what your sources are telling you. Because we're hearing one side say one thing and then the sources say another thing.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Well that's right, Michaela. The Police Chief, Tom Jackson, is expected to step down as part of this reform plan for the Ferguson Police Department and in his place, the St. Louis County Police Department is expected to takeover management of the police department there. Now as you mentioned, you know, they are really kind of preparing for the results to come from this grand jury, whether or not they're going to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. And there's a lot of concern about what the streets of Ferguson -- the reaction will be on the streets of Ferguson, and also, frankly, they also want to try to move forward on changing the department there because they obviously have a very bad relationship with the local community.

BERMAN: Which seems completely separate in some cases. Not completely separate, but that is a separate issue to the whole Michael Brown saga at this point. Evan, the Mayor of Ferguson was asked by our Sara Sidner about the idea of Chief Jackson stepping down, and he says no. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Is there a plan in place to have if Jackson steps down?

MAYOR JAMES KNOWLES, FERGUSON, MISSOURI: No. No.

SIDNER: Are you given any impression from any other --

KNOWLES: People have been saying that for months, I mean, for him to step down, but we've stood by him this entire time, so there's no change on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: So I suppose the question is, is, it may not be up to him. Does he just not know about it or is this something that will be imposed? When we say step down, is he being forced to step down?

PEREZ: Well you know, this is part of a discussion that's been ongoing with the state, the governor's office, with the federal government, and with the local officials and, you know, there's been a lot of pressure on the mayor and the city council itself, simply because it does seem like the department has not been able to handle what the protesters have been asking for there. A lot of the police duties have been handed over already to the St. Louis Police Department, and you see the tweet there from the Ferguson Police Department, which is, in some ways, trying to deny what we were reporting, but I think you'll see in the next few days, some of that pressure increase on the Police Chief, simply because it's part of the plan to get this reform going.

PEREIRA: So you know, I -- come to think of an area that's certainly very much your expertise, the Justice Department is still investigating all about what went on with Michael Brown's death, how the police department handled it in Ferguson. If he were to step down, does that complicate things?

PEREZ: It doesn't, really, I mean, he's - you know, part of the problem all along here has been this view inside the Justice Department that the leadership of the department was part of the problem. There was a letter that they sent just last month in which they were expressing some concern that there were officers who were still wearing these wristbands that say, I am Darren Wilson, which, you know, is obviously something that's going to inflame people on the streets. So there's been a lot of issues that they've had. And it's not really going to complicate things because that process is already ongoing. And they also have a separate investigation into whether Michael Brown's civil rights were violated, and those two things are still continuing on the same track.

BERMAN: Evan Perez, great reporting. This could be a dramatic development, thanks so much for being with us.

PEREZ: Thanks.

PEREIRA: From the launchpad, to Kingdom Come, it was bad enough to lose a spacecraft and valuable cargo, but is this one giant leap backward for private space industry?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)