Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Chuck Hagel Talks about Role of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan; Report on U.S. Use of Torture in War on Terror; New Federal Guidelines against Profiling; Backlash on Gang Rape Story in "Rolling Stone"

Aired December 08, 2014 - 10:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. A very busy news day here. I'm Don Lemon, in for Carol Costello. Thank you so much for joining me.

We have a CNN exclusive this morning, a one-on-one interview with departing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. He is making his last visit to Afghanistan and assessing the extended mission that will far outlast the final days in command - his final days in command.

CNN's Jim Sciutto is our chief national correspondent. He is traveling with Hagel and he joins us now from Kuwait city. Hello, Jim.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Hi Don. Well, something of a farewell tour for the Defense Secretary Hagel. This, of course, coming just after the announcement of his departure but also a farewell for U.S. forces there as they draw down and transition from combat role to an advise and assist role for Afghan forces there. That said, there are going to be more U.S. troops in Afghanistan as of 2015 than under the original plan. In fact, 1,000 more troops. Secretary Hagel announced just this weekend 10, 800 instead of the 9,800 originally planned because, as Secretary Hagel told us as we spoke, Afghanistan remains a very dangerous place.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO (voice-over): This is Chuck Hagel's fourth trip to Afghanistan, but his last as Secretary of Defense. We traveled with him to tactical base Gamberi in eastern Afghanistan where he met with troops, sharing his own experiences, the first enlisted combat veteran to serve as Defense Secretary.

SCIUTTO(on camera): Do you think it will be a loss for the Defense Secretary position to have someone who didn't have that experience in the role?

CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: That's not for me to decide. Everybody brings to their positions their own set of experiences, and their own strength and I believe my set of experiences fit me very well. But that's Chuck Hagel. I don't ever judge anybody else.

SCIUTTO (voice over): At the end of this month, U.S. forces will give up their combat role for training, advising and assisting Afghan forces. A new mission as the U.S. prepares for a complete withdrawal in two years.

SCIUTTO (on camera): The U.S. made similar investment of blood and treasure training and advising, assisting Iraqi forces. We saw how they dissolved with the advance of ISIS. Why are you confident that Afghan forces will perform better?

HAGEL: They want us here. They want - They want us to help them, assist, advice, train, how we left Iraqi was totally different. The Iraqi government did not want us there. The Iraqi people did not want us there.

SCIUTTO: It is train, advice and assist, but U.S. forces will still be able to do force protection, if there's a threat to U.S. forces go out and neutralize that threat. And in addition, you mentioned combat enabling. That speaks to close air support. How much danger will U.S. troops be in even as they transition out of an official combat role?

HAGEL: This is totally different from where we've been the last 13 years, what we have ahead for the next two years, but I think bottom line is we have got to realize this is still a war zone. This is still a war. And so you put men and women in a war zone, they're still in a war zone.

SCIUTTO (voice over): Taliban attacks are down this year from 2013, but Secretary Hagel's visit comes during a new wave of Taliban violence in the capital Kabul.

SCIUTTO (on camera): What's the most concerning thing you've heard from commanders? The thing that scares you the most?

HAGEL: I think this country, first of all, has made tremendous progress. Where Afghanistan was five years ago, two or three years ago, it's hardly any comparison. But it still has threats. Al Qaeda, Taliban, they have built the Afghan security forces, a very strong security force institution. So, yes, still challenges ahead. But I think every sign is that they can do this. But it's still in dangerous place.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Secretary Hagel told us today that during his meeting with the Afghan present, Ashraf Ghani, the timetable of the U.S. withdrawal came up. We're told by a senior defense official, however, that no formal request was made to change that timetable, and there are no current plans to change it. But we do know that U.S. forces are going to be monitoring Afghan forces very closely for their ability to respond to the threat. Don, tomorrow, I'm going to get to sit down for a longer interview with Secretary Hagel to delve into more of these issues and all the many challenges facing the U.S. around the region. Don?

LEMON: Jim Sciutto, thank you. Now, to the breaking news. The family of American photojournalist Luke Somers tells CNN that U.S. officials did not warn them of the rescue attempt. That bid fails, and al Qaeda terrorists killed Somers and the South African hostage as U.S. military commandos closed in. We want to get straight now to CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr with the latest on this. Barbara?

BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning again, Don. Obviously, very difficult news for the families involved. The family of Luke Somers saying, that they didn't sign off on any rescue attempt by U.S. Navy SEALs to rescue Luke. I have to tell you, I don't know that the administration would have contacted a family first about a specific rescue attempt. It's well understood, I think, that the U.S., the U.S. military does everything it can to rescue Americans being held around the world. But still, family members expressing their concern and obviously some of their dismay and their grief about this situation.

His stepmother and sister telling CNN, and let me just quote you for a minute, "We feel that Luke stance would have been that more discussion should have taken place between the countries concerned that this crisis should be solved with more dialogue and less conflict." The family said, and they feel more should have been done sooner to try and get look back. Now, the hostage takers in this video, that we are showing, there was discussion on that video that Luke Somers had just three days before something would happen to him and that is what added to a good deal of urgency by the Obama administration to try to rescue him.

So, the question o4 whether there was ransom involved, some efforts to release, him and, of course, the tragedy that the other gentleman Pierre Korkie apparently was about to be released for ransom. He, unfortunately, also killed in this raid. Again, adding to a lot of dismay and grief to the families, but at very difficult situation, President Obama making the decision to do everything that could be done to risk trying to get them in back. Don?

LEMON: Just sad all the way around. Barbara Starr, thank you very much. Meanwhile, the U.S. military bases around the world are ratcheting up security as a precaution and there are several reports that U.S. embassies are going on alert, all because of the pending release of a so called torture report. Tomorrow Senate Democrats are due to unveil their findings on enhanced interrogation techniques that the Bush administration used on post-9/11 terror suspects. The report is expected to reveal controversial details of how detainees were questioned, including the use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation and slapping. That issue is the overarching questions. Did these techniques gain valuable intelligence? Republicans have pulled support from the report and many in the intelligence community warn that disclosures will anger allies and rally terrorists.

CANDY CROWLEY, ANCHOR, CNN'S STATE OF THE UNION: Let me move you on to a couple of other things. Senate Intelligence Committee, we expect, will be releasing this report on the CIA activities vis-a-vis interrogation of terrorists during the Bush administration, may com, this week. Do you know what's in the report and what's your basic - fear or do you applaud the idea of saying, let's get some of this out there?

REP. MIKE ROGERS, (R) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: No, I think this is a terrible idea. So, our foreign partners are telling us this will cause violence and deaths. Our foreign leaders have approached the government and said you do this, this will cause violence and deaths. Our own intelligence community has assessed that this will cause violence and deaths

CROWLEY: Because - why? Because - because other countries, and they are not going to name other countries that helped the U.S. in interrogating and holding suspected terrorists. So, if they don't name it and they don't have things that otherwise identify a country, why would it cause?

ROGERS: Well certainly, again, these foreign leaders believe it will. Our intelligence community believes it will and our foreign liaison partners believe it will, because we have seen what happens when other incidents are used in the propaganda terrorist machine to incite violence. Think of the cartoons in Denmark and how many people died as a result? Think of the burning of the Korans and how many people died as a result. They will use this to incite violence. And here's the scary part about this. Again, and Senator Kerry -- excuse Secretary Kerry, has engaged in this because he believes this is dangerous to what they're trying to accomplish overseas. That tells you something.

This is more than just differences on what happened. This is -- and then you have to ask this, Candy, what good will come of this repo? There's been a Department of Justice investigation. It was stopped under the Bush administration. There has been congressional action to stop this activity. President Obama put executive orders, and he wouldn't continue any of that activity. Not that it was going on, it would had since been stopped.

So, you have to ask yourself, if you know that all of those learned people believe that people will die because of this report, what good can come of it knowing all of that other -- all those other things have actually happened.

LEMON: So, one of the claims of the report, and this is according to the "New York Times" is that the CIA misled President George W. Bush about the brutality and the tactics here, and the effectiveness in retrieving valuable information. But in the interview with CNS's Candy Crowley Mr. Bush bristles at the report's claims and defends the intelligence community.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are fortunate to have men and women who work hard at the CIA, serving on our behalf. These are patriots, and whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it is way off base. And I knew the directors, I knew the deputy directors, you know, I knew a lot of the operators. These are good people. Really good people. And we are lucky as a nation to have them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: The CIA now disavows the enhanced interrogation program as a mistake that it won't repeat.

And still to come here on CNN, starting today there are new federal guidelines against profiling. But why are airports screenings and other important security check points exempted?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Starting today, federal law enforcement agencies will use new guidelines to prevent profiling. And this comes with the country already in the grips of protests coast to coast over grand jury's failing to indict white police officers in the death of two black men. The key areas are exempted from the guidelines, raising a whole lot of questions. CNN's justice reporter, he's Evan Perez, he joins us now from Washington. So, what do these guidelines spell out, Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, you know, they've been working on these for five years now, for just over five years and as you can see from those protests, it's probably not a moment more relevant right now because everybody's concerned about police conduct on the streets and so here's what the guidelines will cover. There's a ban on profiling related to religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity. And that's in addition to the current ban on ethnic and racial profiling, Don. And Attorney General Eric Holder says that he's going to go on the phone today to try to urge law enforcement in states and cities to also adopt these rules because right now what these rules would apply to is only federal law enforcement.

LEMON: Yeah. So, if it doesn't apply in airports, right, the new rules don't apply in airports and ...

PEREZ: Right.

LEMON: And at the border, the key areas, I mean where do they apply? Because a lot of people complain about being profi2d at airports, right?

PEREZ: Well, yeah, this is a big fight. You know, because when DOJ was trying to announce these rules earlier this year, the Homeland Security Department was objecting to it because the want to be able to do this. They say they need to be able to do this for purposes of enforcing immigration law and also for national security purposes, not only at the borders, but also at airports because, you know, one of the ways they keep an eye out for people who might be suspicious who want to get on planes is to, frankly, look at them on all these different categories. so they say there are things that they have to do that may - that have to, you know, require these exemptions and that's why you see some groups, some civil liberties groups are not happy with them, Don. They want like a blanket ban on profiling because they say it breeds further abuse from police, from national security agencies and so they need it -- they want it to be stopped across the board. LEMON: So the attorney general, Eric Holder, has been pushing for the

change, but the FBI, Homeland Security, resisted, saying that it would make their work more difficult. So what's their reaction here?

PEREZ: Well, so, you know, the - these rules replaced once they were put in place in 2003 and they had -- those rules had a big, big carve out for national security investigations. So the Justice Department feels that this is a big step forward. I have talked to people at the FBI and Homeland Security in the last couple of days and they feel that, you know, they can work with this. They're not entirely happy, but they feel they can work with this. They say that it's something that is - it does make their life a little bit more difficult, but they feel that it's been a good balance have been reached, Don.

LEMON: Evan Perez, thank you. We appreciate your reporting this morning.

PEREZ: Sure.

LEMON: Despite calls for peaceful protests from the family of Eric Garner, Oakland, California, it was home to a violent scene overnight. Protesters surging onto local highway, as police say they hurled explosive bottles and rocks at cops. All of this in the process, two officers suffered minor injuries while eight people were arrested. And that comes after police deployed tear gas Saturday night to break up crowds looting in nearby Berkeley. Peaceful protesters jumping in to stop the chaos. One of them struck in the head with a hammer for his efforts.

The protests have been largely peaceful, really. They prompted President Obama to pledge more than $200 million for body cameras and training for police officers, but my next guest says Eric Garner's case proves body cameras won't save lives. And here's what he writes, in part, he says "Body cameras can lose their effectiveness when the decision makers in the criminal justice system lack a racial justice lens and they interpret what they see based on their racial prejudice. If a chokehold is permissible because black people are criminals, then beasts, and savages, then producing the videotape of a chokehold might not make a difference to certain individuals." So, let's talk to David Love now, he's the contributor to the Grio and he's executive editor for blackcommentator.com. David, good to see you. Thanks for joining us here on CNN.

DAVID LOVE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, BLACKCOMMENTATOR.COM: Thanks a lot, Don, good to be with you.

LEMON: So, does the solution lie in changing the grand jury process instead of using body cameras? Where is it?

LOVE: I would like to begin by saying that I think it's a good idea to have body cameras. Anything that is going to provide more transparency, to make sure that we know what law enforcement are doing, I'm all for it. But I think that we have to make sure that we don't think this is going to be a panacea. The problem is that the criminal justice system is fundamentally flawed. And what I really think we have to do is we have to look at the grand jury process. We have to look at these D.A.s who unfortunately are beholding to the police, so they're not really able to do their job and go after, you know, bad cops because they depend on cops to provide testimony and all sorts of information to help their cases, so really it's a fundamental problem with the system that we have to get to and the issue of body cameras is only one part of the solution.

LEMON: Right, you're saying don't think body cameras and then the problem is solved and then just move on from there. There's much bigger issue that must be dealt with in a much bigger, broader system. But, you know, you also say that bad laws that cops operate under are as big a problem here as body cameras. So explain what do you mean by that about bad laws.

LOVE: Yes. One example when you look at Eric Garner in Staten Island, we have to remember why he was stopped by police. It was because of this loosey cigarette law. You know, years ago under the Giuliani administration in New York they had this broken windows philosophy where you go after small crimes, you know, petty offenses such as, one example, selling loosey cigarettes or drinking a beer outside in front of your house. The idea was that you were going to get to the bigger crimes by going after these smaller crimes, but really what has happened in the end is that you're harassing lots of people who are doing no wrong. Particularly people of color. So, you know, Eric Garner shouldn't have been stopped in the first place. At the very most, perhaps, he should have been issued a summons, but there's this notion that everybody in black and Latino community is a criminal so you have to go after them hard. Well, they went after him hard and he's dead now. And I think that we have to really take another look at this type of policy.

LEMON: So to your point, then. You're talking about changing a mind- set, right, and perceptions, and that can be tough to do. So what is the next step here in doing that? Is it more conversations? Because we've been hearing -- we've heard for a long time we need to have more conversations, we need to have - we need to talk about this more. And then, you know, what comes from that? And then heading - or is it heading to the ballot box, revamping police departments, what is it, David?

LOVE: I think a number of things. In the short term we really have to do something about these prosecutors. You know, they are politicians, they can be elected out of office. That's one measure that we can use. Also, we have to keep in mind that when prosecutors do bad, they should be punished. They -- not only at the ballot box, but they should be punished, and unfortunately they are really not beholden to anyone. I think that that has to change around. But the larger issue is that we have to deal with the issue of racial discrimination and injustice in the greater society. To the extent that you have a legal profession that is 90 percent white. To the extent that you have, you know, you have judges, you have some prosecutors who won't do the right thing, they need an education, but if they can't be educated they need to be replaced. We need to change the whole society and the mindset and to really help people understand the issue of racial justice.

LEMON: David Love is a contributor to the Grio and an executive editor for blackcommentator.com. Thank you, David. I'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Three national Greek organizations calling for an apology and the immediate reinstatement of all fraternities and sororities on the University of Virginia campus. Last month, UVA shut down all Greek operations in the wake of an explosive "Rolling Stone" article detailing a brutal gang rape at a fraternity house. But now discrepancies in the alleged victim's account are being brought to the surface. And "Rolling Stone" magazine is apologizing for running the article without getting the other side of the story. The attorney for UVA's Phi Kappa Psi fraternity tells CNN that several details in the article are just wrong. He says records show there was no party the night Jackie claims she was attacked, there's also no side staircase inside the frat house, which the article states Jackie walked down after the attack, and the frat brother who allegedly brought her there was never even a member of Phi Kappa Psi. John Foubert is the former assistant dean at UVA and a professor at Oklahoma State University. And John, the alleged victim still stands by her story, "Rolling Stone" has retracted the article so should fraternities and sororities be allowed to operate on campus again?

JOHN FOUBERT, PROFESSOR, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY: Well, I don't believe "Rolling Stone" retracted the article, I believe that they put a statement on it that questions some parts of the original reporting. But when the University of Virginia told the fraternities and sororities not to operate until the end of the semester, essentially, that was one week between Thanksgiving and final exams so, no, they absolutely should not reinstate operations and I think it's patently offensive for national fraternity to demand an apology after it -- there's substantial evidence that a gang rain occurred in their house now and frankly someone went to prison for a gang rape in that house years ago. So, I find it deeply offensive.

LEMON: Do you think that witnesses -- their accounts or cases are being swept under the rug, John?

FOUBERT: Do I think accounts of witnesses are being swept under the rug?

LEMON: Yes.

FOUBERT: By whom?

LEMON: Just by the university or maybe even by "Rolling Stone"?

FOUBERT: Well, no, I don't think "Rolling Stone" is sweeping anything under the rug. I think, you know, I think one of the members of the board of visitors at the University of Virginia publicly said that they were sweeping things under the rug for a long time, paraphrase of her statement. But I think we need to be honest about the problem of rape on college campuses and that the other thing is we have to stop assuming that if there's a different way a survivor tells a story at different times that that somehow that means that she's lying. If it, you know, if I told you and I told two other reporters the same story, I'm going to tell it a slightly different way based on the questions I'm asked. Just because someone tells some minor details of the story a little differently at different times that doesn't mean they're lying. That, frankly, means they're human.

LEMON: Can I ask you, because we're just getting this that Emily, who is a suitemate of Jackie, is now writing in the student newspaper and is saying that she believes -- she said "I fully support Jackie and I believe whole heartedly that she went through a traumatizing sexual assault." I remember my first semester here, I remember Jackie's. And then she goes on. So she has support from her suite mate who knew her during the time that this happened.

FOUBERT: Right. So, she has that support and I think that's evidence for her case, certainly, that, you know, someone who lived with her, saw that there was a trauma that happened right afterwards. I mean that's certainly not a surprise.

LEMON: Well, it's new. I mean her suitemate is now writing for the first time. And speaking out for the first time. I wanted to get your reaction on that. So what kind of damage, though, does this story do to other victims, if at all? Victims of sexual assault?

FOUBERT: Well, it does lots of damage in the sense that what women are so hesitant to do is to come forward and say "This is what happened to me." And when you see a survivor who is honest about what happened and the national fraternity attacks her and then other reporters attack her and it seems like the whole world is ganging up on her, the message that sends to survivors is "Shut up and don't say anything." And we need to stop saying that message. We need to create an environment where it's OK to say I was gang raped, I need help. So I think all of the noise around right now questioning her account is just -- it's silliness but it's also deeply tragic.

LEMON: Thank you, John Foubert, I appreciate it.

FOUBERT: Thank you.

LEMON: Still to come, on the issue of race, progress has been made in the U.S. Those words coming from President Obama even as he acknowledges there's still work to be done. But how will his words be received by the American public? We'll talk about that next.