Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Kassig Beheaded; Ferguson Video; Terrorists Letters; DEA Investigating NFL

Aired November 17, 2014 - 14:00   ET

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

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Pamela Brown, in for Brooke Baldwin. Thanks for being here with us on this Monday.

Live during this show, we are expecting to hear from the heartbroken parents of Peter Kassig, the third American beheaded by ISIS in Syria. The grainy and chilling clip is tacked on to the end of the group's latest propaganda video. But unlike previous murders, Kassig's decapitation is not seen. Instead, his head appears at the feet of a masked man who threatens to, quote, "slaughter your soldiers." President Obama is condemning Kassig's murder as, quote, "an act of pure evil." Kassig was in Syria as a medical aid worker when he was captured. And he told CNN's own Arwa Damon that he was driven to help after witnessing so much civilian suffering in Iraq where he served as an Army Ranger.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETER KASSIG: We each get one life and that's it. We get one shot at this. We don't get any do overs, you know. And like, for me, it was - it was time to put up or shut up.

The way I saw it, I didn't have a choice, you know. I -- this is what I was put here to do. I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic and I'm an idealist and I believe in hopeless causes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: And joining me now to talk about this, Nic Robertson. He's been following this story.

Nic, his parents, simple to say, you know, didn't take his capture lying down. They went to Twitter. Even getting the support of an al Qaeda linked militant. And they also released a statement about their 26-year-old son. Tell us, what did they say?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They say that they're incredibly proud of their son. They're incredibly proud that he had dedicated his life to helping the lives of other people. And they say in their statement, "we are heartbroken to learn that our son Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig has lost his life as a result of his love for the Syrian people and his desire to ease their suffering. Our heart also goes out to the families of the Syrians who lost their lives along with our son." That last reference there is to the Syrian soldiers, air force men who are seen slaughtered, beheaded in the same video clip put out by ISIS. Quite their most horrific clip and propaganda stunt, if you will, that they've done so far, Pamela.

BROWN: Yes, absolutely. And, Nic, what do we know about the U.S. efforts of trying to find Kassig?

ROBERTSON: There were certainly efforts to reach out to his captors. Indeed, one of the al Qaeda groups linked to ISIS on many occasions, sometimes they fight against them, sometimes they fight with them, al Nusra, one of the al Nusra leaders had actually said that Peter had helped save his life and helped treat him in hospital, in Syria. So that was one, if you will, sort of statement of effort.

But behind-the-scenes there were efforts to reach out to his captors. There were efforts to convince them that Peter was there in -- Abdul- Rahman Kassig, as he was known there, was there in a capacity to help and not to hurt and there was a real hope that that would, coming from such a senior level from al Qaeda even, that this sort of appeal might have carried water. But ISIS is just literally so barbaric they clearly listened to none of it.

BROWN: Yes, there's just really no words. We're expecting again to hear from Peter Kassig's parents at 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

Thank you so much, Nic Robertson. We appreciate it.

And shifting our focus to another big story we're following at this hour. Any day now a Ferguson grand jury could come down with its decision of whether to charge Officer Darren Wilson for killing unarmed teenager Michael Brown. It's likely the grand jurors have seen this video right here of the officer two hours after the killing on August 9th. Wilson is headed from the police station to the hospital with a swollen face and bruises. That's according to "The St. Louis Post-Dispatch," which just obtained the surveillance footage and police radio calls.

And the paper says the audio shows the confrontation between Wilson and Brown that took less than 90 seconds according to the paper. And in this police call, Wilson acknowledges he's going to investigate a theft.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DISPATCH: Sir, we're talking (ph) a stealing in progress from 9101 West Florissant. 9-1-0-1 West Florissant. Subject may be leaving the business at this time. Standby for further.

OFFICER WILSON: 21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So that was at 12:02 p.m.. The paper says at 12:03, someone tweeted about the shooting. The officer told police Brown went after him and his gun. Some witnesses say Brown was running from the officer when Wilson shot him. What is certain, within 10 minutes of Wilson's call, dispatch was receiving its first hint of the three month of unrest that would hit Ferguson streets. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DISPATCH: Frank 25.

OFFICER 25: Get us several more units over here. There's gonna be a problem.

DISPATCH: Are there any available Ferguson units who can respond to Canfield and Copper Creek, advise?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Joining me now to talk about this, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin and CNN commentator and legal analyst Mel Robbins.

So, Mel, let's focus on the video of Wilson. Reports have said that Wilson was in fear of his life, under attack in his patrol car. Do you think the video backs up his version of events?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR: Well, I don't think we know enough about the video in terms of how far away from the shooting and when it took place was the video actually taken. And, number two, just like we saw in the George Zimmerman case where there was the video of George Zimmerman walking through the police station, many of us saw it and said, oh, wait a minute, this guy says he was in a fight? There's nothing wrong with him. And then there were photos from the scene. I think the more compelling evidence, if there is that evidence, would be any photographs or any medical reports from the hospital documenting actual injuries. But, to me, that video really doesn't show much of anything.

BROWN: And I think that's just a reminder that we only have one tiny piece of the overall puzzle. We're just seeing a little glimmer of it. There's a lot more that the grand jury is obviously weighing. But tell me what your thoughts are, Sunny, about this video. You think it cuts both ways, right?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do. I actually disagree with Mel. I think that the initial information that we were given from the police department was that he had a, you know, a broken eye socket. That he had this orbital injury that was just so terrible that he would have been blinded by it. Well, you look at the video, this -- he was walking through the police station hours after the shooting. He appears to be walking just fine. And so I think that, given what we've heard and what the grand jury probably has heard, his injuries don't seem significant enough to justify seven shots to an unarmed man.

And let's remember, Pam, that is the issue here, whether or not each and every shot was justified. Now, if he's saying I feared for my life because I was injured, because I had this scuffle at the car that put my life in danger, well, I don't know. I don't see evidence of that. So I do think that it's important evidence.

I think what may, quite frankly, cut both ways is what we've heard. You know, the dispatch information from 911. Bottom line is, this happened in 90 seconds. And so if you're a grand juror, you're thinking, well, of course he had to make these really quick decisions. It happened in only 90 seconds. And so who are we to challenge what his perception was. But the other side of it is, well, you're a trained police officer. You shot at an unarmed man. You are trained to be able to react effectively in these kinds of situations. So if you overreacted, then that is not justifiable homicide.

ROBBINS: Unless they determine, based on the evidence, that - and they -- if they believe the officer's account, that he fired on somebody that assaulted him inside the car and if the physical evidence also tends to corroborate that and you've got a bunch of witnesses, I mean this is - you know, Sunny's right, there's evidence that goes both ways in this case.

BROWN: How much do you think what happens at the car, if he actually feared for his life, should impact the actions he took outside of the car when those shots were fired?

ROBBINS: Well, I think it depends what we learn about what happened in the car. If it's a simple scuffle and then there are 30 seconds that pass and there's a long amount of time and he does have his hands actually up in the air, which a lot of witnesses say, that's one scenario. If he's punched in the face and maybe his eye socket's not broken but his vision's blurred and the gun's gone off and he's been assaulted and he's not maybe even seeing clearly and it happens in quick succession and from his vantage point the hands up actually look more like a lunge forward, that's a totally different scenario.

BROWN: Right.

ROBBINS: So I think it depends a lot.

HOSTIN: But I think what's so interesting, Mel and Pam, is if we have all of this evidence that liens both ways, that is enough for probable cause. Remember, that is the standard in front of the grand jury. It's just a little more likely than not, mere tipping of the scales, that a crime was committed. That this was not an appropriate use of force. And so if it cuts both ways, then we should be seeing an indictment in a case like this and a jury should decide.

BROWN: But what makes (INAUDIBLE) is that the bar is higher -

HOSTIN: Correct.

BROWN: Because he's an officer. And so I think that that's an element of this. And also there's been a lot of, I think, false, you know, speculation about the grand jury and how it's been going. In fact, there's a really interesting article out today by one of your fellow legal analysts, Paul Callan, and he's actually defending the use of the grand jury in this case in his piece in "The Daily Beast." He says, "there's no conspiracy in Ferguson's secret jury," quote, "had the St. Louis prosecutor proceeded by summary arrest and a probable cause hearing before a single judge, the resulting judicial decision, whether ordering dismissal or a murder trial, would undoubtable have been subjected to criticism based upon the race or reputation of the judge." So, Sunny, what do you say to that because, as he points out, the prosecutor had a choice, right? I mean he chose to go the route of the grand jury.

HOSTIN: Uh-huh. Well, I think Paul is wrong and I've told him this to his face and so it's nothing new. Bottom line is, we have never seen this done. I don't care who you talk to. Even in a police shooting, we have never seen a prosecutor who is seeking an indictment throw everything in front of the grand jury, including evidence that would never even be admissible at trial, to somehow procure an indictment. So the suggestion that somehow it's not very transparent being it's (INAUDIBLE).

ROBBINS: It's not (INAUDIBLE). Paul and I were in a cab last night, a couple nights ago, and he was calling a friend of his who is a sitting D.A. who said this is how they do it in police shootings. That they put everything in.

HOSTIN: That's not true.

ROBBINS: They take a step back. That they try to be objective. And I think one of the things that is true --

HOSTIN: If one D.A. says that, then that mean it's police procedure across the country? We know that -

BROWN: All right.

ROBBINS: Well, you can't just sit here, Sunny, and say it's police procedure across the country not to do it.

HOSTIN: But we know that this -

BROWN: Ladies, we will be continuing this discussion -

HOSTIN: (INAUDIBLE) this particular prosecutor has indicated that he's never done it this way. And I think that's what we need to be looking at.

BROWN: All right, Mel Robbins, Sunny Hostin, thank you for that lively discussion. I appreciate it, as always. And I'm sure Paul appreciates it as well.

Coming up right here in NEWSROOM, did President Obama just soften his tone on sending American ground troops to fight ISIS? Hear what he says would force him to completely change the mission.

Plus, explosive claims from al Qaeda terrorists who is called the 20th hijacker. CNN has learned in a letter he talks about who funded the hijackers and the plot against Air Force One. Our brand-new reporting is next.

And, first Taylor Swift breaks up with Spotify. Now Garth Brooks coming up with his own way to sell his albums. I'll speak with the music superstar just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Explosive claims from the man known as September 11th's, quote, "20th hijacker." CNN learned that convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui recently wrote to two federal courts offering inside information about al Qaeda and connections to the Saudi royal family. CNN's Deborah Feyerick joins me here on set.

You actually covered the Moussaoui trial, so you know a lot about this man. Tell us, are these claims being taken seriously?

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's very interestingly because even back then there were a lot of serious issues about what he knew and whether, in fact, he was crazy. In fact, he was diagnosed a paranoid schizophrenic. But to carry this out, he's often been portrayed as the missing 20th hijacker.

Now, in a four page hand-written letter, he is reviving old claims that have so far been debunked that a specific Saudi prince and princess were involved in financing 9/11. However, Moussaoui takes it a step further, claims that Saudi embassy officials were involved in a plot to shoot down Air Force One and assassinate Bill Clinton and/or Hillary Clinton during a trip to the United Kingdom. Well, he says that he met with the Secret Service agents several months ago and told them what he knew.

To put it in perspective, Moussaoui's court appointed trial lawyers back in 2006 portrayed him as a paranoid schizophrenic and even 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden at the time denied that Moussaoui was part of the hijacking plot. He is in a supermax prison in Colorado. He is eight years into a life sentence after pleading guilty to terrorism and murder conspiracy in connection with 9/11. But he's claiming in this letter that he was attacked in prison on orders of another terrorist, Ramsey Yousef, who's in the same prison, and he tried to get Moussaoui not to testify against the Saudis.

Moussaoui is asking for new lawyer, he says, in exchange for what I can provide, vis-a-vis information. He wants to be moved out of this H unit, which he calls a Saudi stronghold. He wants a warmer cell that's not infested with rodents and he also wants his money back to buy stamps. So, Moussaoui has been making these claims, but now the Justice Department is doing due diligence and they are looking into it, even though a lot of reports, a lot of expertise has been put into determining whether in fact the Saudis were part of the 9/11 plot.

BROWN: Right. And they have repeatedly denied this, right? What is their response then?

FEYERICK: Well, they have. And it's really interesting because not only has the family continued to sue the Saudi royals and basically lawyers for those families say, you know, the information that was provide is relevant, it's pertinent and it could be critical. The Justice Department is taking its time. It's reviewing. However, the Saudi government, in court papers, has denied any involvement, financial or otherwise, saying that the Saudi kingdom was cleared many years ago. So it's still very much alive. BROWN: And we know in the 9/11 Commission that basically it says that

there's no clear evidence linking Saudi Arabia to 9/11, but there are 28 pages, right -

FEYERICK: Right.

BROWN: Of classified documents regarding Saudi Arabia. What do we know about that?

FEYERICK: Well, and this is what's so interesting and this is really what keeps sort of the fuel going -

BROWN: Right.

FEYERICK: Because there are a number of allegations and accusations allegedly in those 28 pages of documents that have so far not been released. The person who put out the 9/11 Commission report said everything should be made public. It's been more than 10 years. The fear for some is that, in fact, it's going to renew allegations, accusations that simply aren't true. It's going to hurt the relationships between the U.S. and the Saudis. Also some people say that the 28 pages, in fact, really show a much tighter relationship between Saudi royal family and George W. Bush, which many people knew back then at the time. So, again, it keeps going.

BROWN: Until those are unclassified, the conspiracy theorists will continue to come up with their own theories about what's in those pages.

FEYERICK: Exactly. Exactly.

BROWN: Thank you so much, Deb Feyerick. We appreciate it.

FEYERICK: All right.

BROWN: So, are these false claims of a rambling convicted terrorist who's known for his explosive behavior, or real accusations that need to be explored? Let me bring in Jonathan Schanzer from Washington. He's the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Jonathan, great to have you here with us on the show. First off, what do you make of these allegations?

JONATHAN SCHANZER, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Well, they're allegations that simply won't go away. The Saudis have long been at the center of that plot of 9/11 primarily because 15 out of those 19 hijackers were, of course, Saudis. On top of that, you mentioned the 9/11 report. There was significant verbiage that was focused on Saudi Arabia, primarily because we know that there was something called the golden chain. This was a group of deep pocket donors based primarily in Saudi Arabia, also in and parts of the Gulf, that were funding al Qaeda.

Now, obviously, there are questions that have emerged as to whether the Saudi royal family was directly involved or whether these were just individuals who were freelancing. But nevertheless, we know that Saudi Arabia played an incredibly important role in the 9/11 attacks. And so this has just revived this, of course.

BROWN: Right. And how credible do you think these claims are coming from this man, Moussaoui?

SCHANZER: Look, he's incredibly erratic if you watched his court behavior. You just heard about some of the diagnoses that came down. The fact that he fire his lawyers. The sorts of requests that he's making. The kind of claims that he's making. You can't trust him. But then again, he did have access to some of the planners of the 9/11 attacks. He did have access to some of the leaders of al Qaeda. And so I think you at least have to listen to him and try to figure out if what he says checks out.

BROWN: At least run it down, as Deb Feyerick says, the Justice Department is looking into this, at least. I want to circle back around, talking about Saudi Arabia, because they have denied these claims citing, quote, no evidence to link them in any way to September 11th. And as we point out, the 9/11 Commission cleared the Saudi government. Though there are those 28 pages of the report regarding Saudi Arabia and those remain classified. But what is your take? Is there anything, any concrete evidence linking the two?

SCHANZER: Well, there is in the sense that Saudi society, and this was actually mentioned in the 9/11 report, that Saudi society has really enabled this kind of radical ideology that spawned al Qaeda. That Wahhabism, this very radical and acedic (ph) rand (ph) of Islam that the Saudis have been propagating for years, was at the core of all of this. And so it's - I think it's been very disingenuous for those who call Saudi Arabia one of the moderate Arab countries. It certainly was not moderate in the least. It just may be more moderate when you start to compare to it the Islamic state, for example, especially because the Saudis are fearful of it and they're fighting it right now. But Saudi Arabia has played a very dangerous role in the rise of radicalism across the Middle East for the last two or three decades.

BROWN: And you point out Wahhabism. That is the most sort of extreme strain of the religion, correct?

SCHANZER: That's right, or among them anyway. Salafism and Jihadism, they stem from Wahhabism or there can be a core of it in there.

BROWN: Right.

SCHANZER: And so, again, very troubling that they have been propagating this through schools, through madressas (ph) around the world. And that has not stopped. And so that's something that we continue to talk about, the kind of curriculum that the Saudis are spreading around the world as the custodians of the two holly mosques and as the leaders in many ways of the Muslim world.

BROWN: Jonathan Schanzer, thank you for your insights.

SCHANZER: My pleasure. BROWN: Several NFL teams getting a surprise inspection after their games from DEA agents. But the players weren't the ones being investigated, it was the doctors, the trainers. Hear why, up next.

Plus, a new video surfaces of the crash of Malaysia Airline Flight 17. See what witnesses did in the moments right after.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The NFL's practices are once again under the spotlight after federal drug agents conducted surprise inspections on multiple teams. It happened right after yesterday's games and included medical staffs from the San Francisco 49ers, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Seattle Seahawks. The visits are part of an ongoing federal probe into alleged prescription drug abuse. Investigators are also looking into whether team doctors are illegally giving players pain killers. So joining me now to talk about the surprise inspection is CNN's sports correspondent Rachel Nichols.

Rachel, great to have you with us on the show to talk about this. I mean this was really a surprise, seemingly. Has this ever happened before and what were they looking for?

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: It's certainly rare. And they're basically looking for pain killers and prescription drugs. And we're talking about high level prescription drugs. Serious stuff that are being distributed to players either by people who aren't supposed to do it - they're only supposed to get these kinds of medications from doctors or nurse practitioners - or if they're being distributed in the wrong place or without the proper prescriptions. So they're seeing if these teams are giving them in states they're not supposed to be giving them because, of course, you can't bring these drugs across state lines.

And they're also basically following up on, there was a class action lawsuit where more than 1,000 NFL retired players said, hey, we've been given these drugs in a way where we weren't told the repercussions of them, we weren't told that they were addictive. All of that's illegal, by the way. The doctor is supposed to go over with you issues with drugs that they give you. They were also cocktailing, basically giving drugs that shouldn't be given together. They were being handed drugs. Some of these players allege that they were distributed on team planes, basically the way you or I might get a pillow and blanket, just left on their seats with a beer to wash them down, which obviously is not the way you are supposed to be taking high level prescription medication.

BROWN: Right.

NICHOLS: So that lawsuit was filed in May and this basically - the federal government getting involved, saying, hey, we've now been tipped off that this is happening. This is legal ramifications. We're going to look into this as well.

BROWN: And they're not only looking at the doctors, the team trainers as well, is that correct? NICHOLS: Absolutely, because there are certain people who are not allowed the give this out. And also you might notice that they visited with visiting teams at these stadiums this weekend. They didn't go visit any of the home teams. And the reason again is that physicians are only licensed to give out these prescriptions in their home states.

BROWN: Right.

NICHOLS: They can't cross into another state and issue these prescriptions. So, in theory, if a player really needs it in that visiting location, they're supposed to go to the opposing, the home team doctor, and get them. That just doesn't happen a lot of the time because, hey, why help out your opponent.

BROWN: Right.

NICHOLS: There's that attitude in the NFL. So maybe these players are getting prescription medication in places they legally aren't allowed to.

BROWN: Yes. And it's written in the law, the Controlled Substance Act.

NICHOLS: Yes.

BROWN: So it's right there in writing.

NICHOLS: It's all right there.

BROWN: All right, Rachel Nichols, thank you very much.

NICHOLS: Thank you.

BROWN: We appreciate it.

And up next right here in NEWSROOM, President Obama now says that ground troops will not be used in the war against ISIS unless the group acquired a nuclear weapon. My next guest says that's not impossible.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)