Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Senate Interrogation Report Slammed; ACLU Advocates Pardons for Bush, Torturers; Mississippi Teen Burned to Death

Aired December 10, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: The fallout coming fast and furious. The CIA torture report prompting calls for revenge from jihadists, accusations of partisan payback from politicians and, oddly enough, a push for pardons from the ACLU.

Also this hour, who could have set this 19-year-old on fire, leaving her to die by the side of the road? Mississippi police on the hunt for whoever killed Jessica Chambers.

And --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSS TALK)

POLICE OFFICER: Give me your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) hands. Get out of the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) car.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Brutality in Baltimore. The video police tried to erase. A woman legally recording an arrest ends up getting roughed up, Tasered and accused of assaulting officers. It is a video you simply have to see to believe. Not to mention the result.

Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

It has now been 24 hours since a world still fighting al Qaeda and now fighting ISIS got the fullest picture yet of CIA treatment of terror suspects in the wake of September the 11th. And the world has responded, mostly without rage and revulsion. But one man thinks this blistering report, borne of a five year, $50 million Senate investigation is, and I quote, "a partisan pile of bull" you know what. And how does he know or claim to know? He's one of two former CIA contractors who came up with the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques and were paid more than $80 million to carry them out, though he will not admit that in public. My CNN colleague Chris Frates spoke with that man and he joins me live now from D.C. with the details.

So give me the lowdown on who it is we're talking about and why he won't publicly confirm what his role was when he's so defiant in terms of what he calls this report. CHRIS FRATES, CNN INVESTIGATIONS: Hey, good morning, Ashleigh.

So, I talked to James Mitchell and he tells me he can't confirm or deny that he's the psychologist mentioned in that report because he has a nondisclosure agreement with the government. But, as you point out, he had pretty strong feelings. He called the report, quote, "a partisan pile of bull," and, of course, you know the rest of that we can't use on television. But he also said that when the interrogation program was operating, CIA officials were running a gun battle with al Qaeda, and al Qaeda was still a group they knew very little about and the operatives did the best they could with the information that they had at the time, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: So what about the notion that -- and the report was very clear about this whole set-up of a system being really novice or ill- prepared. And I'm using, you know, my own words to describe what a very large report said, but effectively that this was just badly put together by people who were unqualified.

FRATES: Well, Ashleigh, maybe it's not surprising that he did seem to defend these interrogation techniques. He said to me, quote, "nothing was done to those detainees that aren't done to our service men 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.

BANFIELD: Can I ask if he thinks that this report is full of lies? I mean there's some very specific accusations in this report. You don't hear things like rectal rehydration being performed in training on American citizens or American service members. You don't hear of being hanged from a wall in temperatures that can lead to death. And you don't hear about seven days without sleep. Are these lies, according to your source?

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

BANFIELD: And he's not the only one. Chris Frates, good work. Thank you for that reporting, live for us in Washington, D.C.

And in light of such revelations as waterboarding, mock executions, as I said, rectal feeding, sleep deprivation, dungeon-like confinement, the question becomes, what then? What next? Once it comes clean, what can or should the United States government be doing beyond saying, we won't do it again or we're sorry or, OK, we admit it, we did it?

I'm joined now by CNN legal analyst Paul Callan and by our own Nick Paton Walsh, thousands of miles from his usual beat in the world's most dangerous places.

And first to you, Nick. The blowback. Originally people thought, leading up to the release of the report, that this would be catastrophic for our service members. There were people put on notice positioned overseas that they needed to be on high alert. Our Marines were being warned. Did it feel that way? Was it that way? Is it that way? Or are we only at the tip of the iceberg?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's measurably (ph) not materialized at this stage. Yes, there is a real silence, frankly, from the usual groups you would expect to respond to something like this, partially because a lot of the details we kind of already knew. I mean there's some barbaric things in there which are fresh, but a lot of it was also presumed to have happened in the Middle East certainly during this kind of dark period in American history.

So we may see this being used in propaganda in the future. We may see it being used as perhaps justification for latter acts. But remember too, some of these groups have tactical surprise (ph) of their own. They're not going to attack when everybody's particularly ready for that. So it hasn't materialized yet, but we may see this pop up much more in the future.

BANFIELD: And another question I think it behooves asking, and that is this, sure that list that I just outlined was brutal, and as you said barbaric and ugly and it's not the kind of thing that Americans like to see. I mean, I look at rectal feedings alone and I think, really? We did that? We were capable of that. But isn't the truth that our enemies do much worse and that perhaps they're looking at this report thinking, really, that's all you've got?

WALSH: Well, I mean, there's no real sense and moral ambivalence between (INAUDIBLE). You can't really justify one wrong by less (ph) another. But I think the issue too is with people judging this in the Middle East now are seeing such brutality that it's off the scale compared to this, as you say. Some of these details are only really new. A lot of this was already presumed to have happened. So, in the current climate, it's smaller fry. The difference is, it's being turned into a political fight. This entire event is all about America's reassessment and (INAUDIBLE) this process, but --

BANFIELD: But what about their scale of brutality, on their scale of brutality, how bad is that list?

WALSH: It's small. I mean that's not to say for the people to whom it occurred it wasn't awful and terrible and ghastly and a terrible indictment of those behind it.

BANFIELD: Of course.

WALSH: But in terms of what is happening in Syrian jails, for example, now on a daily basis, it doesn't really match up.

BANFIELD: Paul Callan, weigh in, if you would, on the very simple question that's being bandied about. It's a very complex question but it comes down to this -- actionable or not actionable? Can people in high places who are architects be actually held accountable legally for this, right down to the people who actually carried out the pain and suffering?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you know, I'm betting, in the long term, you're going to see some presidential pardons granted just to make sure that no high-ranking American officials who handed down some of these orders are charged. I do think that it would be almost impossible to charge them in the United States. The statute of limitation has pretty much expired on all of these things. And the torture that we see in the report took place in foreign jurisdictions where, frankly, U.S. courts will not have jurisdiction.

What people have to worry about, though - and I'm talking about governmental officials involved in these programs, are international actions taken against the United States. If somebody travels to Poland or Italy or Egypt or some country that says, we have the right to make an arrest, you might get a high-ranking American official arrested abroad. And I think that's going to cause problems for the U.S. going forward.

And one other thing I just wanted to say, harkening back to what you were just talking about, about how this is minor compared to what the terrorists have done. I mean we're not - there were no beheadings listed in the report.

BANFIELD: But this isn't about murder. This is about leading up to murder. And in one case at least that's listed could be considered murder, the person who was left in the cell to freeze to death.

CALLAN: But you can see how the terrorists use it against us. They dress their prisoners in jumpsuits, reminiscent of Guantanamo.

BANFIELD: Right.

CALLAN: And then behead them. So they try to link to brutality of the United States in engaging in their own brutal activity. So I think we don't -- we're not on the same scale, but certainly they do try to link it back to American brutality.

WALSH: You do run the risk of these techniques potentially becoming an issue for any future American hostage who's held by militant groups in the months ahead.

BANFIELD: And then also the recruiting.

WALSH: And, remember, all the information they accept was pretty much useless.

BANFIELD: Nick Paton Walsh, good to see you, and it's nice to see you safe and sound and here in person. You do some terrific work overseas. We're all very proud of your work. Paul Callan, as always, your legal expertise second to none. Thank you both.

You know, for years, the American Civil Liberties Union has been pushing for those in government responsible for the torture to be held accountable. But now the ACLU says, and you just heard Paul Callan mentioned it, that President Obama should issue pardons for President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the CIA director at the time and anybody else who may have allegedly authorized or overseen the enhanced interrogation program and everything that fell from it. I'm going to ask the ACLU executive director why he thinks asking for pardons is the answer that he deems necessary. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Probably the last organization that you'd expect to advocate pardons for torture suspects is the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. But after years of fighting to hold the Bush administration to account for what occurred on those so-called black sites, those prisons overseas, the ACLU has changed course, trying a different track now. And the executive director, Anthony Romero, joins me now to explain.

And I have to admit, when I saw the headline of the piece that you wrote -

ANTHONY ROMERO, EXEC. DIR., AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Yes.

BANFIELD: Pardon Bush and those who tortured, I did a double take.

ROMERO: Yes. Yes. It took - it took a lot of people by surprise.

BANFIELD: Right, because really everything that you did since -- by the way, what's remarkable here is, you took the helm of the ACLU one week before 9/11.

ROMERO: That's right.

BANFIELD: Welcome to the job. Every --

ROMERO: Yes. I and Bob Muller both started the same day.

BANFIELD: And everything that you and your organization tried to do was hold people criminally accountable for these suspected and then reported-on tortures and what you call crimes. And now pardons?

ROMERO: Well, to be clear, we believe that prosecutions is the way to go. Ideally, that's the world we would live in. We've been calling for that for over 10 years. I remember sitting in the back of the confirmation hearings for Roberto Gonzalez, and he was one of my lobbyists in Washington saying, we've got to lay a glove on these folks, we've got to call for special prosecutions. And that's - out of that genesis of that discussion came our campaign to ask for the accountability for torture, to prosecute the individuals that we knew broke the law.

Now, it's really clear, this many number of years in, and especially these many years into the Obama administration, that they showed little appetite for prosecutions. The Justice Department inquiries and efforts --

BANFIELD: And a special prosecutor in '09, Eric Holder called for a special prosecutor, ultimately came out of the investigation saying no laws technically were broken.

ROMERO: Yes, but they weren't fully thorough. I mean the John Durham (ph) investigation and others didn't really look at the full gamut of the issues. They didn't interview, for instance, as I understand it, and they have not said otherwise, they haven't interviewed one individual who was a victim of torture. Now, it's really hard to imagine how you would have a thorough report investigation without talking to the victims of the crimes.

BANFIELD: Yes, well that's what the Republicans are saying right now. It's really amazing, you could have 6,000 pages -

ROMERO: Right. Right.

BANFIELD: Without ever having interviewed those who are being accused of these things. Let me take a different tack here to the ultimate goal of yours.

ROMERO: Yes.

BANFIELD: And that is this. What you're suggesting is that by issuing pardons to - and I'll just throw the list out here, you know, among others, but President Bush, the CIA, the National Security Council, the Justice Department --

ROMERO: Addington (ph), Yu (ph), Flibi (ph), name names.

BANFIELD: And everybody on down, naming names -

ROMERO: Right.

BANFIELD: By issuing pardons, ultimately you're putting on the record that crimes occurred and putting anyone on notice going forward, you can't do this or else.

ROMERO: See, what's most vexing is the fact that we have the president saying that torture happened. He's not pointing the finger at any criminals who committed torture. No one's been prosecuted. There's this great debate -- were you watching the news yesterday and today saying, what we did was lawful, effective, necessary and even moral, some of those are making those arguments.

That is an untenable situation because you say that torture shouldn't happen, but yet you haven't held anyone accountable. And so the president's got to make up his mind. He can't sit on the fence any longer and say, torture happened but there were no criminals who did the torture or authorized the torture. And so by authorizing pardons, he jumps down squarely in the fact in saying, these were crimes. Those who perpetrated and authorized the torture were indeed criminals. I'm going to pardon them in the spirit of moving forward as (INAUDIBLE).

BANFIELD: Pre-emptory pardons because there's no crime committed, effectively on paper no crime committed.

ROMERO: Exactly. Exactly. But then he would send a really clear signal saying, don't try this again, folks. That future government officials should understand that these were indeed crimes. And individuals who authorized it and perpetrated the crimes are indeed criminals.

BANFIELD: I could talk to you all day about this. We didn't even get into the conspiracy charges that you suggest don't have a statute that's run out and the war crimes, the international war crimes as well. But I'm just running short on time for this moment. But you'll have to come back because I don't think this is going to go away.

ROMERO: I will. I'll be -- it's not going to go away. Not if we can help it.

BANFIELD: Nice to meet you. Thanks so much for your time. Appreciate it.

Another story we're focusing on today, an investigation into a horrifying murder. A 19-year-old woman set on fire by the side of the road in rural Mississippi. Her parents are crying out for justice. Wait until you hear what happened. Wait until you hear what's happening.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Police in Mississippi are trying to figure out who is the monster behind a horrific murder. A 19-year-old girl named Jessica Chambers was found burned from head to toe alongside a rural road. It happened on Saturday night. And when the first responders arrived on the scene, Jessica was still alive. They tried to save her, but it was too late. She died at the hospital. And what makes this especially painful for her parents, this is the second child they have lost. About two and a half years ago, Jessica's big brother was killed in a car crash. Martin Savidge is live at the CNN Center in Atlanta.

You read the details of this story, Martin, you cannot believe it could be true. Do they have any leads? Do they have any knowledge of how this happened and who did it?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It is a horrific story. Let's start there. They do have leads. And they do believe those leads are going to get them to the person who carried out this crime.

Let me explain how it began. 8:00 Saturday night in rural Mississippi, outside the small town of Courtland, population about 500, a caller says, hey, there's a car on fire. The volunteer fire department shows up on the scene and there they see coming out of the darkness a horribly burned young girl. She staggers towards them, collapses and whispers something to one of the fire officials. And that is believed to be key to this investigation.

Unfortunately, even though they rendered aid, she died the very next day at a hospital in Memphis. Her family says it's believed an accelerant was used on her, not just on her, but poured down her throat, possibly up her nose. It is incredibly vicious. This is her father, Ben Chambers, talking about the unimaginable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN CHAMBERS, VICTIM'S FATHER: They said that as far as they could tell, like they squirted fluid down her throat and up her nose because it was burned on the inside so bad. The doctor told us there wasn't nothing we could do, you know? She was burnt 98 percent of her body.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: The authorities are trying to determine right now exactly what kind of accelerant was used. The state fire marshals involved in that investigation, it's possible they may call in the ATF to assist. And the other big clue here could be her cell phone. Cell phones, of course, can tell you who may be the last person to call you was, was there some time connection between that call? How about text messages? Is there something there to suggest? Authorities do believe that between the phone and what she whispered, they will work this out. They think it is a local crime, but that does not downplay how horrible it is.

BANFIELD: And, Martin, a couple of people questioned, right? Like they have brought people in, but so far it's yielded nothing in terms of arrests?

SAVIDGE: Correct. They had a couple of things they looked at. They have talked to people, they've brought them in, they've questioned them. There have not been any arrests. There's also a surveillance video that shows her about 90 minutes before the fire call and she's at a local mom-and-pop gas station getting something to drink. What happened in the hour and a half after that is where the focus of the time line investigation is right now. There were reports she was supposed to go to a party. However, those who were at the party say they didn't see her. So where did she go in the interim?

BANFIELD: Oh, our hearts just go out to the Chambers family. That is just so awful, those details. Martin Savidge live for us in Atlanta. Thank you for that. Keep us posted.

An ugly, ugly encounter with the police is caught on tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSS TALK)

POLICE OFFICER: Give me your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) hands. Get out of the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) car.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: A woman videotaping police officers as they are allegedly beating a man in custody. She tells them she has every right to record the encounter, which she does. But what happens next is nothing short of ugly. Details on that story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The Los Angeles Lakers, most of them, showed their solidarity with the nationwide support for the family of Eric Garner last night. If you take a close look, you don't even have to look so close, you can read it, "I can't breathe" in bold letters on their warm-up t-shirts last night in L.A. The Lakers joining several other pro-athletes who have made similar political statements of support for the movements protesting the police involved death of a New York City man.

More public protests are planned across the country today, which also happens to be International Human Rights Day observed every December 10th since 1950. And it's also a day that protest organizers are calling for a day of action, not only in honor of the Garner and Ferguson protests, but everywhere that they say people need the world's support.

One of those groups, the Gathering for Justice, is circulating a list of demands that they hope will gather enough support to be heard by New York authorities. Among those demands, the firing of the police officers they say are responsible for Eric Garner's death in July, a special prosecutor to investigate all cases of deadly force by the police, and a training program for all New York police officers aimed at reducing or wiping out alleged racial bias in the department.

And here's another one. An accusation of police mistreatment and it is all caught on camera. No one died in this case, but look at the words that are about to be on the right-hand side of your screen. We've got a quote from a Baltimore police officer to a woman who was recording an arrest with her cell phone. I want you to watch this and how the whole thing went down in Baltimore.