Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

White House Addresses Senate Democrat Report on U.S. Torture of Terrorists; Architect of CIA's Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Calls Report "Partisan Pile of Bull"

Aired December 10, 2014 - 11:00   ET

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

JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm John Berman.

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN CO-ANCHOR: And I'm Michaela Pereira.

@THISHOUR, we're waiting to hear from the White House for the first time since that explosive Senate report on CIA torture, President Obama standing by the decision to release it publicly, but the fallout? The fallout is intense, and it is ongoing.

BERMAN: There are fears this morning that the report is putting U.S. service members across the world in danger and giving terror groups a recruiting tool, as if they needed any.

There's a white-hot debate over the contents of the report itself. One of the key claims, that the tactics used, however brutal they are, those tactics did not work, the report says.

But the current CIA director and three of his predecessors say they did work and helped foil terror attacks and even find and kill Osama bin Laden himself.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney calls the report a bunch of hooey. He said that before it was even released or had a chance to read it. The reaction not purely partisan. Some Democrats say the report is biased. Some Republicans, you heard John McCain on the Senate floor yesterday, defending the report.

PEREIRA: Let's talk to our Jim Acosta. He is at the White House. He's in the briefing room where that briefing is set to take place

So what are you hearing, Jim? What are we expecting to hear here today?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, John and Michaela.

Yeah, the White House Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, they scheduled an unusually early briefing this morning. But they're saying that's purely for logistical reasons but we are going to hear Josh Earnest really take these questions head on about this torture report that was released by the Senate intelligence committee chair yesterday, Dianne Feinstein.

We should point out Earnest took questions about this on Air Force One during a press gaggle with reporters, but that was off camera. This will be the first time we hear from Josh Earnest on camera about this torture report.

And I think this is really the first time that the press is going to have a chance to ask Josh about some of the really damning, really revealing allegations that are made in this report, that there was extensive waterboarding way beyond what the American public knew about, that there were other forms of these harsh interrogation techniques that sunk to levels that many Americans would probably be shocked by if they were to go through and read this report line by line

So I think what's going to be playing out over the course of the next hour or so, you'll hear questions from reporters who are pressing Earnest on this key critical question and a couple of key critical questions.

One is, did this intelligence that came out of this harsh interrogation program amount to anything? Was some of the stories that were told by these detainees, were they fabricated because they wanted the torture to stop? Does the White House believe that, or do they believe there was intelligence that helped lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden, for example?

You mentioned what some of these former CIA directors are saying. Former CIA directors Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, and George Tenet had the op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal" yesterday, responding to this report that said that they believe that this intelligence coming out of this interrogation program helped lead to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

There's one passage in that op-ed where they talk about the fact that in the weeks and months after 9/11, it was like a ticking time bomb scenario that they were afraid that Osama bin Laden was plotting with Pakistani scientists to develop a nuclear weapon that could be set off in Manhattan.

And so it is sort of in that vein that these former CIA directors are saying, look, this is why we did what we did.

And it's interesting to hear what the president had to say about this yesterday, John and Michaela, when he was doing the interviews with the Spanish language stations Univision and Talmud, originally supposed to be about immigration, but they ended up asking him about the torture report.

The president really sort of saying on a couple different occasions that you have to sort of go back and look at the time frame where all of this took place. He was sort of characterizing this interrogation program as sort of a relic of the early years after 9/11 and that that might explain somewhat as to why these American values, in the president's view, were not upheld in carrying out those harsh interrogation techniques.

We're hearing the two-minute warning for the press briefing right now, but, John and Michaela, I think those are some of the key questions that are going to be playing out in this briefing.

BERMAN: I can get another question in if we still have two minutes left, Jim

Jim, one of the key questions now is what now? What will the president do? What will the White House, the administration, do now that this report is out there? There are several times over the last few years Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the Justice Department will not prosecute the CIA officers who may or may not have been engaged in torture over the years.

Does that change now? Any indication of that?

ACOSTA: There is no indication right now, John, that the Justice Department is going to launch investigations into these former CIA officials, and I think the question is going to be asked a couple of different ways.

One is, yes, Eric Holder said these things, but they were not in the context of this torture report as it was laid out to the American people yesterday. There are details in this report that clearly amount to torture under U.S. and international law, and you've had some -- you heard some conversation over the last 24 hours that perhaps this is a case for international criminal court proceedings and certainly U.S. justice proceedings.

And so I think that is a key question that is going to be asked, but I think going back to what the president was saying in a statement in those interviews, that he wants to move forward not back, that's an early indication they don't want to see prosecution.

But of course it will be an interesting question to ask of Josh Earnest here in just a couple of minutes.

PEREIRA: Absolutely. We're waiting on that.

While we are, why don't we turn to Barbara Starr, Pentagon correspondent. Barbara, one of the concerns here is obviously the FBI and other -- and the Department of Homeland Security are concerned about what could result in overseas, in fact, going to lengths to release a bulletin warning that there could be repercussions.

What more do we know?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: I may have the quickest answer because right now, thankfully, while the warnings are out there, forces are on alert and being very watchful.

No indications yet of any direct threats to any U.S. facilities either many the United States or overseas. Still keeping watch, but right now it's really extraordinary. They're seeing a very muted reaction to all of this.

BERMAN: What about U.S. allies, Barbara? One of the fears has been that some countries that the U.S. is friendly with would be outed as hosting some of these black sites for secret prisons. STARR: Well, we've just actually heard from the former president of

Poland who was in charge of that country when some of this happened. He said, yes, he was asked by the United States to provide a facility where people could be questioned, but he says he did not know what was going on inside that facility.

And, of course, now we know that Poland did provide one of those so- called black sites where the CIA was secretly interrogating these prisoners, so Poland today coming forward very much out in public. There has been some talk about it before.

Other countries, again, have been named out there. The big concern in this, the former Polish president said, with all of this out in public, it may be tough for the United States to find other countries in the future who will agree to work with the CIA on these covert programs over fear of being outed about them eventually.

PEREIRA: Barbara, I suppose one of the concerns is here is that this is early hours after this report has been released. It may be a question of just watching and waiting.

We know that oftentimes this kind of information is used as a propaganda tool; it has been before. So this is something they're going to continue to monitor.

STARR: Oh, absolutely. Watching social media, especially watching some of those ISIS websites, there already some commentary on there. The government of Iran has come out publicly saying some pretty unpleasant things about the United States in all of this as you can well imagine.

So it's not that there's no chatter out there, but at the moment, they're not seeing it turn into action on the streets, if you will, people moving against U.S. embassies or facilities overseas.

So the social media universe becomes kind of an early warning signal that they look at constantly to see if there is chatter out there, how legitimate it might be, and how much trouble it may be stirring up.

But, you know, thankfully right now, at least, it's all quiet, essentially. Not to say they're not still watching, no forces have come off alert status as far as we know at this point. I think it's fair to say they're going to give it a few days, maybe perhaps until Friday.

But they're just not seeing it. This is not turning in, at least at this point, to the kind of thing when you saw situations develop after there were threats by a preacher in the United States to burn the Koran, after the Danish cartoon about the Prophet Mohammed.

You're just not -- it's not that kind of reaction that you're seeing, at least thankfully not yet.

BERMAN: Barbara, Josh Earnest the White House press secretary is beginning his briefing right now. He's going over scheduling and administrative issues. The minute he starts talking substance about the report, we'll go back to him. But et me sneak in one more question to you, if I can. This report is about the CIA, which is a different entity than the military, than the Pentagon, than the defense establishment.

I'm wondering if you've had a chance to get reaction from rank and file, from the soldiers out there, from the men and women in the field who could be aversely affected by this report.

STARR: Well, look, the United States military has its own history, of course, on this subject with this notorious events at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq a number of years ago.

What it all has really led to is the U.S. government now has the standard. It obeys something called the Army Field Manual. There are international norms, rules, and regulations for how interrogations are conducted, and you guys just pointed to the key reason for all of this.

It's because the U.S. follows these, you would be told, because it's always concerned. If U.S. troops were captured overseas, the American people would not want them tortured in any way, so the U.S. has to follow the rules, too.

PEREIRA: All right, Barbara Starr, that briefing is about to commence. Why don't we return now to the White House briefing room and Josh Earnest?

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, Jim, I'd refer you to the Department of Justice on this. And I do that principally because it's my understanding that the Department of Justice actually did conduct a review of the actions of CIA operatives that are mentioned in this report; that there was a career federal prosecutor who was assigned to this case and that this individual conducted an extensive inquiry. And upon looking -- looking at the facts and evidence, decided not to pursue an indictment.

So, for questions about what that investigation included and how and why that conclusion was reached, I'd refer you to the Department of Justice. And again, these are the kinds of decisions that should be made without any sort of -- even -- without even the appearance of political interference. And so, we've been very clear about -- about the proper role for the Justice Department in this matter.

In addition, I understand that there were inspector general investigations, at least one. I think maybe even two, that were conducted along these lines. And again, the inspector general is somebody who operates independent of the executive branch. And again, those -- for the conclusions of those reports, I believe at least some of those conclusions have been made public. So I'd refer you to those reports.

But again, those are reports that were done, you know, absent the -- or aside from any sort of presidential directive.

QUESTION: And does the president agree with former CIA officials that the interrogation techniques did result in actionable intelligence? Or does he agree with the Senate committee's conclusion that they did not?

EARNEST: Well, Jim, you are acknowledging that there are a couple of sides of a very vigorous ongoing debate. This is a debate that occurred around the announcement of the successful mission to take Osama bin Laden off the battlefield. There was a similarly robust debate that occurred around the release of the movie "Zero Dark 30," that talked and examined issues around the bin Laden mission.

The conclusion that this president has reached is that these differences, which are held by well-meaning, patriotic Americans, many of whom have detailed knowledge of these programs and of our national security efforts more broadly, is that there actually is one thing that both sides do agree on, and it's something that the president agrees too, which is that the most powerful -- one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal to protect and advance our interests around the globe is the moral authority of the United States of America.

And the commander in chief concluded that the use of the techniques that are described in this report significantly undermines the moral authority of the United States of America. And that's why the president on his, you know, second full day here at the White House issued an executive order ending those tactics.

The other thing that the president did, and there's not been a lot of discussion of this lately, so I did want to call it to your attention, the president also through an executive action asked that the Department of Justice and a couple of other relevant national security agencies conduct a review of our -- of the way that the U.S. government interrogates those individuals who are in U.S. custody.

He also urged this task force to conduct a review of the way that individuals who are in U.S. government custody are handled and in some cases transferred to other countries.

And the outcome of this review, that was led by a career prosecutor, identified a couple of things. The first is, he concluded -- again, I think this was in August of 2009 -- he concluded that the Army Field Manual and law enforcement techniques were sufficient guidance for U.S. personnel who are conducting interrogations, that that was clear guidance that they could use.

He also suggested the creation of something that we have used to great effect on a number of occasions, something called the high-value detainee interrogation group. This is another terrible government acronym, it's called the HIG. But it -- the acronym does not accurately describe exactly what this group is. What is essentially suggests is that there should be an interagency group of expert interrogators convened, where they can share best practices, and that they can be deployed, on very short notice, to essentially anywhere in the world where a high-value detainee has been taken into custody.

And these expert interrogators can then use their skills and training to elicit information that's useful for national security, but also in a way that doesn't prohibit our ability to bring these individuals to justice in the U.S. court system.

And this is a -- this -- the HIG has been deployed on a number of occasions to great effect.

The other reforms that were included in this review, included specific guidelines that U.S. personnel should use when transferring individuals from the custody of U.S. government to other countries. And this included getting certain assurances from other countries about how these individuals will be treated when they are detained.

It also provides guidelines for U.S. personnel to provide -- to conduct some oversight and ensure that these other countries are living up to the commitments that they've made in terms of the detention and treatment of these individuals.

EARNEST: So, this is -- this is just one example. And again, this is the result of a task force that the President created on his second day in office to make sure that the -- that proper guidance and oversight and reform was implemented, as it relates to interrogation and detention of individuals in U.S. custody.

This is important because the Senate report that was released yesterday highlights that there was not good guidance, that there was not good leadership, and there was not proper oversight of a lot of these programs. And yet, that's exactly what the president sought to institute on his second day in office. And I think it demonstrates the President's commitment to taking seriously, very seriously, the need to show some leadership and to reform some of the shortcomings of these programs.

QUESTION: And on the question of effectiveness, he's going to remain agnostic. he's going to let the debate play out, without him playing a role?

EARNEST: Well, the conclusion that the President has reached, again, it's two principle things here. The conclusion that the President reached is a principle that people on both sides of this debate can agree to, which is that the moral authority of the United States of America is one of the most powerful tools in our arsenal to protect and advance U.S. interests around the globe. And it's the view of the President that the use of these techniques, regardless of whether or not they elicit national intelligence information undermine our ability to use this very powerful tool. And that is why the president outlawed these techniques in its first or second day in office.

QUESTION: On the omnibus $1.1 trillion, 1,600 pages will the president sign it?

EARNEST: It's lengthy, isn't it? This is something that he has not, neither has everybody in the administration, so it's still something that the administration is reviewing. There are a couple of things I can say about it, though, that we know generally.

As a general matter, I can tell you that we certainly are pleased that Democrats and Republicans on the Hill do seem to be coming together around a proposal that will avoid a government shutdown. We've talked in the past about how a government shutdown is bad for the economy.

And particularly at this point where we are starting to see some headwinds from the global economy at the same time that the U.S. economy is demonstrating signs of real strength and resilience, the last thing that we need are additional headlines -- headwinds emanating from Capitol Hill. So we certainly are pleased that they seem to be coming around a proposal that would avoid exactly that.

You'll also recall, Jim, that over the course of the last several months, there have been a couple of specific questions that this administration has made for funding some key national security priorities. That includes funding for our effort to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.

It's our understanding based on the top-line review that's been done of this agreement that there is -- that there are substantial resources that have been committed to that effort. We certainly are gratified by that.

You'll recall that the administration early last fall made a specific request for resources to deal with the Ebola fight that I talked about a little earlier, both in terms of making sure that we have the resources necessary to stop this outbreak in its tracks in West Africa as well as improve readiness at medical facilities here in the United States.

Again, a top-line review of the agreement does indicate that there are significant resources that are committed to that effort. We certainly are pleased by that. There are also some key funding proposals related to domestic priorities that will benefit the middle class.

Just to take one pertinent example, there is funding in there that is continued for early childhood education programs, something that the president is gonna talk about across the street in less than an hour. So we certainly are gratified that they are continued to be -- that there is a commitment of resources for that priority.

On the other side of the ledger, you know, Republicans had identified as their priority to try to undermine the president's effort to reform our broken immigration system using executive actions and to cut carbon pollution. Again, based on a cursory review of that agreement, it does not appear that Republicans were successful in that effort. And so that's certainly something we're gratified by.

At the same time, this is a compromised proposal. Democrats and Republicans have signed onto it, and we're gonna -- that's why we're gonna review. I'm confident there are gonna be some things in here that -- that we're not gonna like. And so we'll have to sort of consider, you know, the whole package before we make a decision about whether or not to sign it. So we'll keep you posted on that.

QUESTION: Thanks. EARNEST: OK? Roberta.

QUESTION: The bill contains some pretty significant roll-backs for Dodd-Frank reforms. I'm just wondering what the White House makes of those roll-backs and whether the White House is worried that this is going to, in a new Congress led by Republicans, lead to Wall Street being more involved in terms of asking for roll-backs on these measures.

EARNEST: Roberta, I can't comment on some of the specific proposals.

BERMAN: You've been listening to the White House Press Secretary. When this briefing began, he did answer questions about the new CIA -- the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA torture tactics that were used. He was asked a very key question. One of the central findings of this report is that the tactics that the CIA used did not work, that the enhanced interrogations techniques did not provide intelligence that was crucial.

PEREIRA: The CIA then admitted as such.

BERMAN: The White House, however, refused to weigh in on this. Josh Earnest would not weigh in on whether the president thinks these interrogations techniques work or not. He simply said they undermine the moral authority of the U.S. government. The White House clearly not wanting to get in the middle of the fight between the Senate Democrats and the CIA.

PEREIRA: He kept speaking about the fact that there's this vigorous, ongoing debate and the lines are firmly drawn. But you're right, wouldn't choose a side. We're going to take a short break. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: A partisan pile of bull. That's the blunt assessment of the Senate Intelligence Committee's scathing CIA torture report by someone who reportedly created the very enhanced interrogation program.

BERMAN: For years, James Mitchell has been tied to the controversial tactics used by the CIA after September 11. Now, he is speaking to CNN. He is defending what he did. He is defending the agency and he is slamming Democrats for what he calls a "smear campaign."

Joining us is Chris Frates of CNN investigations and, Chris, you spoke with James Mitchell. Interestingly enough, it's a pseudonym used in the report, right? The name James Mitchell doesn't actually appear there, but everyone knows, or seems to know, they're talking about him. What does he now say about all this?

CHRIS FRATES, CNN INVESTIGATIONS: Good morning, John. Actually, James Mitchell is his real name. He is referred to in the report by a pseudonym and when I talked to James Mitchell, he couldn't confirm or deny that he's the psychologist named in that report because he has a non-disclosure agreement. But he had pretty strong feelings, calling the report a "partisan pile of bull." Of course, he used a much more colorful word than that, which isn't suitable for TV. He also said that when the interrogation program was operating, CIA officials were in a running gun battle with al Qaeda, a group they knew very little about, and they did the best they could given the information they had, Berman.

PEREIRA: So he and this other man, Bruce Jessen, apparently the two of them devised this list of techniques, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, among a bunch of other things that are equally as horrifying. Did he, when you talked with him, even though he would not confirm or deny reports that he was that man, did he defend these methods?

FRATES: Yes, Michaela, he did seem to defend these interrogation techniques. He said, quote, "Nothing was done to those detainees that aren't done to our servicemen and women-and women-by our own training programs. I think it's a national discussion. The administration and the people of the United States really have to ask themselves if whether in a situation like immediately after 9/11 they think it's a good idea to let them lawyer up." He also said he thinks we need to have a national discussion about torture and whether we should allow these terrorists to lawyer up.

BERMAN: Now, he was a contractor, right? And there are allegations, reports, that he was paid a lot of money. I mean, the firm was paid millions and millions of dollars to advise and oversee this interrogation process. What does he say about the report's claim that this whole thing from the CIA had the approval of the administration, the president, and also that Congress was informed?

FRATES: Well, John, he says it's despicable to suggest that the men and women who put their lives on the line after 9/11 would lie to the Senate or to the president. And he said the report has a hindsight bias, and he agrees with the CIA's assessment that the report is like playing a Tuesday crossword puzzle with Wednesday's answer key. And he says Democrats are smearing the memory of those who put their lives on the line protecting this country. He was very, very firm and very angry about this report, John.

BERMAN: Interesting to hear what he has to say now. Chris Frates, great to have you with us. Really appreciate it.

FRATES: Thank you.

BERMAN: One of the key questions people are asking today is, what did president George W. Bush know about the tactics that the report says the CIA was using? The report says he was in the dark for years. That's what it suggested, at least. We'll discuss, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)