Return to Transcripts main page

At This Hour

CIA Director to Face Questions on Senate Democrats' Report on Torture Tactics; Little Reaction to Report in Middle East; Former CIA Officer Says Harsh Interrogations Don't Work; The Legacy of George W. Bush

Aired December 11, 2014 - 11:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN CO-ANCHOR: Taking on torture, the CIA under fire, the director on the hot seat, calls for him to resign, world leaders demanding accountability, and former Vice President Dick Cheney saying the report is "full of crap."

JOHN BERMAN, CNN CO-ANCHOR: So were these harsh interrogations --were they worthless? A former CIA officer who was there steps out of the shadows with an answer that will surprise you.

PEREIRA: Sony's hacking nightmare getting even worse, embarrassing, even racially offensive e-mails about everyone from Angelina Jolie to the president of the United States.

BERMAN: Hello, I'm John Berman.

PEREIRA: That makes me Michaela Pereira. Welcome to Thursday.

BERMAN: It is a crucial day for the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In just a couple of hours, John Brennan will face serious questions about the new scathing report on CIA interrogation tactics after September 11th.

The report says that the tactics including waterboarding, mock executions and more -- the report says they did not work. It also says that much of what the CIA was doing was kept from President Bush.

PEREIRA: Brennan's appearance comes as a key Senate Democrat, Mark Udall of Colorado, is calling for his resignation and as former Vice President Dick Cheney weighs in to defend CIA tactics, now under increasing fire.

Joining us senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta, also our justice reporter, Evan Perez. Good to have you with us.

Jim, I'll start with you. You've got to know what the White House is saying this morning about the report.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: So far their posture has not changed, John and Michaela. They are still not answering two very basic questions. One is should federal prosecutors go and launch a new criminal investigation into CIA officials over these harsh interrogation tactics. The White House is saying that's for the Justice Department to decide. And as Evan knows, the Justice Department has said we'll take a pass on that.

The White House is also not saying whether or not those tactics even worked, which is sort of a silence is acquiescence situation because, as you point out, the CIA director, John Brennan, who will be answering questions later on this afternoon, has said on the CIA website in a statement he believes those tactics did save lives and prevent attacked.

And so at this point, the White House posture has not changed on that. And I think it's going to be a lot of people over here at the White House, watching and waiting to see what John Brennan has to say later this afternoon.

BERMAN: One person who is already talking quite a lot last night was former vice president Dick Cheney on Fox News. Let's listen a little bit to what he said then I have a question for you.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What happened is we asked the agency to go take steps and put in place programs that were designed to catch the bastards who killed 3,000 of us on 9/11 and to make sure it didn't happen again.

And that's exactly what they did. And they deserve a lot of credit, not the condemnation they're receiving from the Senate Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: In effect, Jim, what the vice president there was just saying is they should not be prosecuted which is more or less the stance of the Justice Department and theoretically the White House as well.

The vice president also said that he believes that these terror tactics did work. The White House would not weigh in on that. There's not a huge amount of space perhaps ironically, maybe in tone, but not in fact, between what the vice president -- former vice president was saying and what the administration is saying.

ACOSTA: Not a lot of space in terms of those two key questions and probably not a lot of space in terms of whether or not John Brennan should stay or go. John Brennan was there when these tactics were developed over at the CIA when Dick Cheney was the vice president and was very instrumental in those days and months and years after the 9/11 attacks.

The White House has full confidence, the president has full confidence in John Brennan according to the White House.

Where there is space, John and Michaela, though, is whether or not these tactics should be used. The president has said that has eroded the moral authority of the United States. And that's why he banned those practices, as he says, as soon as he came into office. And that has not changed.

If there's one clear distinction between the Obama administration and Bush administration, it is on this question of using waterboarding and using those harsh interrogation tactics. The president believes that those tactics amount to torture, but he's not going to prosecute anybody for it.

PEREIRA: So, as Jim says, Evan, the White House has full confidence in John Brennan. You'll be in Langley when he steps to the podium. What are you looking to hear from him today at the conference?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: One of the things that's happened over the last few years with John Brennan, in particular, is that he has sort of zigzagged a little bit on some of his answers about this program.

And so I think there's going to be a lot of questions about exactly where does he stand on the way it was developed, the way it was told to the White House and the Justice Department and the Congress.

Because the thing -- the biggest thing that emerges from this report by the Senate is this impression that perhaps, because the CIA does nothing but secret stuff, they might be just -- there is no oversight. They might be ungovernable.

They might be an agency that no one can really put full control of because necessarily they do so much secret stuff and they don't have to tell a lot of people about what they do.

And so this is a real moment of crisis for this agency. They really have to reassure people that they can be trusted to do the work, very difficult work that they do, but that they're going to abide by the law.

PEREIRA: All right, Jim Acosta, Evan Perez, thank you so much. Don't forget that John Brennan news press conference is happening around 1:30 today.

Let's turn now, though, for a little bit of analysis. U.S. embassies have been on high alert since the torture report was released Tuesday. The FBI has warned of retaliation from foreign jihadists and homegrown terrorists alike.

BERMAN: So far there really hasn't been any violence, and the online chatter from potential attackers has been relatively muted.

So, joining us is our terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank. Paul, give us a sense of exactly what the response has been.

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: That's right. It has been fairly muted, both in the Middle East and also on jihadist websites and social media.

Obviously, groups like ISIS and al Qaeda may look to exploit this for recruitment and propaganda purposes in the future, but so far, the reaction has been muted.

Now there have been some calls by English-speaking jihadists on social media for retaliation. There has been a call by an ISIS fighter who is Canadian for two of the psychologists linked to this program to be beheaded.

But by and large, there's been a lot of indifference on these jihadi websites. And that's because, for these people, this is old news. They already have a very dark view of the United States in any case. After all, many of these people believe the United States is at war with Islam, wants to exterminate the Muslim religion.

And I think we're likely to see less of a reaction than in some past controversies, notably the cartoons controversy, the film that came out just before the Benghazi attack. Those touched on deep religious raw nerves. This report doesn't touch on those in the same way, John.

PEREIRA: I'm curious, though, Paul. Is it too early to tell? An intelligence source tells our Barbara Starr the threat of retaliatory attacks could come in days, rather than a quick response in a matter of hours.

CRUICKSHANK: That's right. It is too early to tell. Tomorrow is Friday. Friday prayers, it's possible there could be some reaction after that, that radical preachers could try and get people to launch protests or even attacks.

But so far, it's been pretty calm. And these radicals have grievances against the U.S. ISIS has already called for lone-wolf attacks in the United States. I don't think this is going to push the dial really that much, probably. We hope.

PEREIRA: We hope as well. Paul Cruickshank. we appreciate it.

One of al Qaeda's most dangerous operatives and a terrorist considered to a be a major threat to air travelers is now thought to be very much alive. U.S. Officials are telling CNN that David Drugeon, a master bomb maker for the al Qaeda offshoot group Khorasan was, quote, "likely injured but survived a U.S. airstrike in Syria last month.

The French jihadist is considered an expert in making bombs that can be undetectable in airport screening.

BERMAN: Ahead for us @THISHOUR, a former CIA officer weighs in on this new report from the Senate intelligence committee. Were these interrogation tactics worth it or worthless? And you know what? His response may very well surprise you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I do know from any experience with this kind of treatment that if someone is subjected to enough physical pain, that person will say whatever is necessary in order to make that pain stop. And that's why there's also a wealth of misinformation that comes out of people who are being subjected to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: That's one of the big debates that the torture report has set up. Did it work? Was it worth it? Probably a bigger question for many, was it right? We certainly now know senator John McCain's stance.

BERMAN: It's been his stance for a long time. He, of course, was a prisoner of war for many years in Vietnam. Glenn Carle is the author of "the interrogator." thanks so much for being with us.

GLENN CARLE, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Thank you, my pleasure.

BERMAN: You ran interrogations of a terror detainee 12 years ago. You were there. You saw what happened. There are two big issues we're talking about. Do these harsh tactics work and are they worth it? Let's start with the first question. Based on what you saw and your experience, do they work?

CARLE: No. There really even shouldn't be a debate about this. The results are clear, have long been known. The FBI has known this. Anyone who is involved in this knows this.

The measures that were used by the CIA and the U.S. Military, post- 9/11 actually were torture techniques that we were subjected to in our training so that we would know what happens to you when you are tortured, not as an interrogation tool to extract useful information.

It's just clear. There's no debate. Senator McCain is completely right. He knows firsthand.

PEREIRA: Did you think at the time that there would be repercussions when you were in the midst of this? I'm just curious.

I can imagine if you're having a crisis in confidence in what's going on around you, you would be conflicted. How did you respond at the time? I'm curious.

CARLE: This is part of the tragedy of the whole saga. James Pavitt, who at the time was the most senior operations officer, he was the head of the director of operations of the CIA in 2001, the senior leadership and everyone drown the ranks that the agency exists to do the job on the margins of what is acceptable.

And when the order came to interrogate these people, he said, and the CIA leaders said, the CIA is always left holding the bag, and we will do nothing that is -- nothing that is illegal. We want clear guidance. And the guidance provided was the hack job memorandum that came to be known as the torture memo, written by a political appointee, who clearly doesn't understand the substance of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. history, which authorized basically that you can do anything, which contradicts the Constitution, the 8th Amendment, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Convention Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, and CIA regulations. So it was quite clear, but officers then were in a terrible position because the president had signed an order saying that it was okay, from the Department of Justice, that contradicted our laws and our oath.

BERMAN: So Glenn, three former Directors of the CIA, frankly, the current Director of the CIA, they say that these tactics did provide useful information. The president himself refuses to rule out the possibility that they provided useful information, whether or not it was worth it, that's a different story. What do you say to these people who still think that it can be helpful?

CARLE: Well the president -- the current president is clearly trying to stay out of a debate from the past, happily. And the directors, some of whom I know personally, are men of integrity, but they are misinformed, actually. I was part of -- as were many, many officers, I was not central to this, I was part of these debates ongoing. All of the reports provided from detainees who were subject to enhanced interrogation were recalled, at the time, as unreliable. Because as Senator McCain was just quoted by you saying information provided under duress cannot be trusted and is frequently wrong.

In the 20 cases, the Senate report on this is quite clear. But this was argued vehemently at the time in house. The 20 cases that were touted as triumphs that came from enhanced interrogation all were shown either not to be cases or the information to be wrong. So our leadership, actually, was informed incorrectly, and I think is sincere in their convictions, but that's not the facts.

PEREIRA: Enhanced interrogation, it's such a bizarre thing when you actually hear it sort of talked about. I want to ask you about something that you mentioned, I believe it was on Anderson Cooper's show last night, you say that we can protect ourselves while using methods that align with our values.

CARLE: Absolutely.

PEREIRA: Explain that a little bit more for our viewers now.

CARLE: Absolutely. Americans need to understand this, this is not about being soft and fuzzy wuzzy or anything like that. Hard things need to be done. There are people who are trying to kill you or me or destroy our nation and who are antithetical to our way of life. That's a fact. However, the FBI, the U.S. military, have long known how to conduct interrogations that are principled and effective and in accordance with our laws and our oaths and our Constitution. It works. We have done so. We continue to do so.

We have been very effective, 'we' meaning the U.S. intelligence community and military and FBI, in countering, disrupting, and destroying those who seek to harm us, those terrorists who seek to harm us. And doing all of that while upholding our oaths and obeying our laws.

Let me point out that the United States, after World War II, prosecuted, convicted, and punished numerous Japanese intelligence officers and soldiers for the war crime of waterboarding. Now, if we found then that it's not okay, that it is a war crime to waterboard, why is it different now? It is not different now. We shouldn't be different people or a different nation, and we can be strong and protect ourselves while upholding who it is we are.

PEREIRA: Glenn Carle, thank you so much for joining us @THISHOUR.

BERMAN: Just ahead for us, in light of this new report, what effect does this now have on the legacy of President George W. Bush? Does it damage that legacy? A whole lot of defenders now coming out. They say it's piling on.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: History will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say, never again. There may never be the right time to release this report. The instability we see today will not be resolved in months or years. But this report is too important to shelve indefinitely.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: -- from the Senate's CIA torture report resonating around the globe, creating divide, certainly here at home. It, quote, "stained our national honor." Those are the words of Arizona Republican Senator John McCain about the CIA tactics. While Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz obviously had a different perspective saying, "enough with saying everything is George W. Bush's fault."

BERMAN: It's interesting, though. That is part of the intrigue about this report. What did President Bush know about what was going on? Did he know about the techniques that were being used? There's mention in the report that he was kept in the dark for a few years by the CIA. Former Vice President Dick Cheney now says that's not really the case.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DICK CHENEY, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: Not true. Didn't happen. Read his book. He talks about it extensively in his memoirs. He was, in fact, an integral part of the program. He had to approve it before we went forward with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PEREIRA: Joining us now, Peter Baker. He's "New York Times" White House Correspondent, also author of the book "Days Of Fire: Bush And Cheney In The White House." Good to have you with us, Peter.

PETER BAKER, NEW YORK TIMES WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Thanks for having me.

PEREIRA: Alright, here is the question, I'm really interested in your thoughts, given all that you know and putting your book together. What's the impact, you think, of the report on the Bush legacy, both short term and long term? BAKER: Well, that's a good question, obviously. Look, we knew, long

before this report, that President Bush had authorized the program like this. What we've learned, I think, from the report is more of the details, more of the graphic nature of it. And we have opened up a further debate about how effective they were. What the Senate report is saying is for all the claims by the CIA and by President Bush's administration, it didn't actually produce the kind of intelligence that stopped the attacks afterwards, which was, of course, the point. President Bush and the CIA and Dick Cheney, as you showed, all disagree. They say, no, we were the ones in the bunker, they weren't there, and we, in fact, saw that it did help. This debate is hard, I think, to resolve, but it's one that we'll be playing out for years to come in history. Was it something that made any sense? Was it something that actually produced anything of value?

BERMAN: Peter, it's really interesting. I went back and reread parts of "Days Of Fire" last night, which was delightful because it's one of the best books in the last two years, and it was great reading it again.

PEREIRA: Not just because you're talking to the man who wrote it?

BERMAN: I would say it to anyone who asked. But Peter in your book -- you say that Bush did approve the waterboarding, at least. Just flat out as a statement of fact in your book. You know, Bush says it in his sort of biographical book, "Decision Points." Does this put him in a difficult place now as he looks back? He either has to own all of it or he has to own being in the dark.

BAKER: It's interesting. He's not running away from this to the extent -- what the Senate report says is the CIA didn't brief him on the particulars of the program, on the specific techniques, until 2006, which is almost four years after it had begin. It doesn't mean he didn't know about it, it doesn't mean he didn't approve it. What it means is that they didn't sit down with the people who were actually doing it for all this time and kind of get at the nuts and bolts of what was going on. So what did he know? He says in his memoir, as you point out, that he did know, he saw a list, he actually disapproved or rejected two of the specific techniques, but approved waterboarding and the rest. It's interesting because if, in fact, they're trying to keep the CIA away from the president to kind of keep it out of the Oval Office, he's not buying into that. He's not using this as an effort to have plausible deniability, as other politicians might. He takes ownership of it and says look, I decided this and I still support it. It's an interesting situation. Not the usual kind of political duck-and-cover kind of scenario you might imagine.

BERMAN: And Peter, what else is interesting, Dick Cheney in an interview with Fox News, he also said something really, really fascinating. He said the president knew what he needed to know, which gets to the point you were just making there. How much did they tell him? What did they tell him? What does this say about the relationship between Bush and Cheney, which you wrote so much about?

BAKER: Well, look, you know, Bush believes strongly in a management style in which he made big decisions and left the details to others. It doesn't mean he didn't know what was going on. But clearly, he didn't dive into it nearly as much as Dick Cheney did. Dick Cheney every morning got an intelligence report, that was the same as the president got, and then an extra set of briefings that went beyond what the president got. He really did dive deeply into the things that were going on on the dark side, to use the phrase he used. So he, no doubt, probably did know things that the president didn't know about what was being done on the War On Terror. And that was the way they had it, that was the way they structured their administration to approach these things.

PEREIRA: Final thought from you, Peter. Do you have thoughts, opinions, on whether the report should have been released in such detail?

BAKER: That's not for me to decide, obviously. I think that reporters, obviously, are always in favor of more disclosure rather than less. I don't know - you know, the argument is it hurts us abroad. And the counterargument is transparency also helps us abroad. That's for other people to decide.

BERMAN: They can easily make the case of this much transparency is what makes the United States unique. Peter Baker, and honor to get to speak to you, and again, I loved reading your book and rereading it last night.

PEREIRA: He's going to continue saying that, by the way.

BERMAN: It's true.

PEREIRA: Join us again. Okay, Peter?

BERMAN: Ahead for us @THISHOUR, we're waiting to hear from House Speaker John Boehner right now. In just a couple minutes he will announce what's the situation with this $1.1 trillion spending bill that hangs in the balance. The problem is members of both parties now say they don't like it. Are we headed to another shutdown here?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)