Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

CIA Director Defends Interrogation Tactics; Communities and Police

Aired December 11, 2014 - 15:00   ET

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

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Top of the hour. You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

In a word, abhorrent, that is how the head of the CIA described the techniques used by his own agents while interrogating some 9/11 terror suspects and many other detainees. But he does say that those detainees did give some information that -- quote -- "saved American lives" and even led to the capture of Osama bin Laden.

But let me be crystal clear here. You're about to hear him make a very important clarification. The -- quote, unquote -- "useful information" these detainees gave them may not have been as a direct result of enhanced interrogation techniques, AKA torture.

Here is John Brennan's clarification in his own words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: Our reviews indicate that the detention and interrogation program produced useful intelligence that helped the United States thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives.

But let me be clear. We have not concluded that it was the use of EITs within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them. The cause-and-effect relationship between the use of EITs and useful information subsequently provided by the detainee is, in my view, unknowable.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: CIA Chief John Brennan, just moments ago, you heard him say it. Unknowable. Could they have gotten that useful information another way? Again, unknowable.

And when he spoke, the woman behind this whole report, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, was live- tweeting, slamming the statements made by John Brennan, using the hashtag "Read the report."

Joining me now on the phone, CNN justice correspondent Evan Perez, who was in there. Posed an excellent question, Evan Perez, on drones to John Brennan. And I want to ask you about that in just a second.

But let me just begin. How often do you actually have a press conference with the CIA, let alone the director speaking for 45 minutes? What was your biggest takeaway from him today?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brooke, it's extremely rare. And we're in the lobby there of the historic CIA building in Langley.

And the biggest takeaway was this tweak that you are -- this clarification that you are putting your finger on right there from John Brennan, in which he basically is maybe backing away a little bit from the strong backing he gave to this idea that this program produced valuable intelligence, that whether we like it or not and as abhorrent as he called these tactics were, which were torture, that -- and a word, by the way, that we won't use -- but it's something that is remarkable what he did today, which was to tweak his answer on that question, because I'll tell you what.

The last couple days, we have been reading the report and also looking at the response from the White House and there was a little bit of daylight between what John Brennan was saying and what the White House was willing to say. And it created a little bit of an issue for John Brennan.

And so today you saw an effort perhaps to clarify and to bridge that gap that was between the White House and the CIA.

BALDWIN: So just so I'm clear because you are bringing something up, we were alluding to Senator Feinstein tweet and you are talking about a John Brennan tweet. I have been sitting here on the air. So, perhaps you are privy to this and I haven't seen it.

Are you saying that since John Brennan spoke there, he since tweeted clarifying one of his answers?

PEREZ: No. I meant tweak. I meant tweak.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Oh, tweak.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Forgive me. Forgive me. Forgive me. Losing my hearing, I feel like.

Let me follow up, though, because you asked this question. This is something that a number of us have been talking about behind the scenes, because you have this enhanced interrogation technique program and then you have what we all have been reporting on under the Obama administration, which was drones and the possibility we may ask the same morality questions about the collateral damage and the innocent lives taken in use of the drone program.

What was John Brennan's response to you?

PEREZ: One of the things he was trying to get at was first he was trying to be careful not to declassify a program that's still classified. The CIA doesn't acknowledge that it uses -- that it has a drone program.

And there was a lot of worry inside the room as he answered my question that he was about to maybe confirm something that we all know exists, but which the CIA officially won't admit.

But what he mostly was trying to get at was that while he was at the White House, if you remember, he was in the White House before he became CIA director, he was the one that was overseeing this program from the White House's standpoint.

And what he was saying was that the military takes every effort to make sure that they minimize the civilian casualties when they conduct one of these strikes. Obviously, he wasn't talking about the CIA program which we know exists, but which he's not able to talk about right now, Brooke.

BALDWIN: It's a point taken just that you were saying who is to say under a different CIA director why reporters such as yourself won't be asking the same questions in a couple of years. Evan Perez, thank you so much there in the CIA headquarters there in Langley.

Let me bring in Kimberly Dozier, CNN global affairs analyst. Kimberly listened to this whole thing as well.

Again, I want to ask you about drones in a second as well. But it's worth pointing out when we heard from John Brennan, he really started out today by talking about the climate, right, the climate in the days and weeks after 9/11. He talked about the agency really kind of being unprepared for those detainees and the interrogations. What did you make of that?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: What I thought he was trying to do was sort of take back the narrative and put out what many CIA officers feel is the story that hasn't been told, the context in which this interrogation program was carried out, reminding people that the towers had just fallen, thousands of Americans had just been killed, and portraying an agency that had this grave sense of both guilt and responsibility and wanted to do anything in their power to keep it from happening again.

What he really did was also make us all pay attention to a statement that Brennan put out, that the CIA put out when the Feinstein report came out, but that was pretty much lost in the shock of the initial realization of what the Feinstein report held.

BALDWIN: Also to the point on John Brennan, he had been in the White House before his top perch spot at the CIA and had overseen the drone program. And so Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesperson under President Bush, tweeted this. This is what he tweeted when he was listening to John Brennan.

"If the way the Bush administration questioned terrorists wrong, why is the way the Obama administration kills terrorists with drones right?"

Does Ari have a point? DOZIER: You know, he absolutely has a point. It's ironic that some

members of the interrogation program like former CIA Counterterrorism Director Jose Rodriguez, say, you know what? If you still had the interrogation program, you could instead of killing these people, capture them and gain intelligence from them.

It's a very tough argument to hear, but it's a hard one -- you know, intelligence is being lost with every one of those suspects who is killed without trial, with just a case built against them and approved behind closed doors at the CIA, the Pentagon and the White House.

BALDWIN: What about the notion when addressing the question of whether this useful information could have been obtained by other means? Brennan says it was "unknowable," to which Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein instantly tweeted and her tweet was this.

Let's put it up on screen and I will tell you exactly what she said. "If we could have gotten the intel other ways, study shows it is knowable. CIA had info before torture."

Your reaction to that?

DOZIER: This is part of what goes on in creating the mosaic of intelligence that leads officers to ask the questions to meet the ultimate target.

In other words, in terms of the Osama bin Laden case and the courier that led the CIA and Navy SEALs to his compound, that courier was first spoken of by other detainees before they were subjected to these techniques.

But then there were other detainees that were water-boarded who were asked about the courier and either in answers they gave or in ways of denying -- in the way they denied his existence, that made CIA officers go this guy is important. Let's follow him.

So what Brennan is saying in retrospect since this information was used to track down bin Laden, you can't discount that it was useful. You also can't though say that these detainees wouldn't have shared the same information if they hadn't been tortured.

BALDWIN: The biggest takeaway of all of our coverage in all of this has been just what's come out, it's not cut and dry and it's not black and white. There's a lot of murkiness here, it sounds like.

Kimberly Dozier, thank you so much for joining me.

Minutes from now, dozens of staffers on Capitol Hill are expected to walk out of their jobs in support of the protest, this movement we have been witnessing challenging the grand jury's decisions both in Ferguson and New York and potentially beyond, but next an interview you don't want to miss.

An African-American police officer currently active writes initially this unanimous letter to protesters with a pretty tough message, but he's now decided to come forward and talk to me. Our live, candid conversation is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

From walkouts to die-ins, the movement to end police violence against our nation's youth is spreading. Any minute now, members of the Congressional Black Associates and other Capitol Hill minority groups will walk off the job to show support for the families of Eric Garner and Michael Brown and others.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: If I can't breathe!

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: You can't breathe!

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: If I can't breathe!

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: You can't breathe!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Thousands of chants, demonstrations over the weekend.

Right now, you are going to hear a voice that's been quiet more or less all this time. It belongs to that of law enforcement, not the ones leading headquarters of the unions. We have definitely heard from them. The police voice you're about to hear is an officer, an active officer who patrols the streets, who is, compared to police officials who have spoken out, much more likely to, you know, be on a scene and have to use a weapon in the line of duty.

His name is Anwar Sanders. And he will joining me here in just a moment.

Officer Sanders wrote an open letter to black protesters published on the African-American news site TheGrio.

And so for the first time showing his face after penning this essay, officer, thank you so much for joining me.

ANWAR SANDERS, NEW MEXICO POLICE OFFICER: You're welcome. Thank you for having me.

BALDWIN: So you wrote this essay. And instead of me reading some of the pieces of it, I asked you ahead of time or we have asked you ahead of time to read some of it.

Would you mind? Would you do me the honor and read me a paragraph?

SANDERS: I would.

In a uniform, I'm a peacekeeper and a protector of people with the ability to save lives. When I take my badge off and end my shift, reality quickly sets in. Walking past white women in the streets who clutch their bags and being followed around convenience stores are a part of my frequent reminder that I'm just another black man in America.

"Little do they know that a few hours ago, before I donned my baseball cap and sneaks, when they called 911, I might have been to their rescue.

BALDWIN: Why did you want to talk to me today? Why are you coming public with all of this?

SANDERS: You know, it's just hard to sit in silence as you see two communities that you belong to, one being my law enforcement community, my employer, and then you see the black community raging together, it's just hard to sit in silence and to not have a voice, especially when I offer such a real, authentic point of view that some white officers or other minority officers cannot really emulate.

BALDWIN: I honestly commend you for coming on, because you were the voice that we have wanted to hear through this whole thing.

You're 25, Anwar. And a lot of these protesters are your age. If you were not a police officer, do you think you would be marching with them?

SANDERS: You know, a lot of the protests is -- a lot of it is a hashtag to me. It's a lot of opinion. I don't know if I would be marching, you know, because opinion is different than offering a solution.

My whole message is more offering a solution, OK? State you -- because everyone has an opinion. There's professional analysts. Everyone has an opinion. But no one is coming out with a real solution. So, I'm not -- I can't say if I would be protesting. I think I would be more sitting back and working on a solution.

BALDWIN: I walked with a lot of these protesters a couple days ago here in New York. And they do offer -- I will -- in their defense, they do offer a number of solutions, but they are very frustrated as well. I saw everything from signs saying black lives matter to them dropping four-letter words at police officers who were trying to walk along with them.

You have that. You write this, Anwar. Let me get to your piece. You write, that "Misperceptions and vitriol directed toward law enforcement frightens me."

What about all of this frightens you the most?

SANDERS: What frightens me the most is, we're at an -- this is like an epic time in history. This is a time where you can bring this black community or minority communities together with law enforcement or we can make the bridge even wider, which is what I'm afraid of.

There's already always controversy between law enforcement in all communities. We're not embraced with open arms when we walk out of our house. We become targets instantaneous. As soon as we walk out of our house, we're a target. This is just making it worse.

It's not bridging -- it's not making anything better right now.

BALDWIN: What made you want to be a police officer? It's not always the popular thing to do, depending on where you come from.

SANDERS: It absolutely isn't. It's not popular at all to become a police officer, especially where I'm from.

You know, I like helping people. I want to make a difference. And being a police officer, I'm able to make a difference every single day, whether it just be making a traffic stop for someone who is speeding who could have crashed down the road a couple miles for speeding. It's just, you know -- it's a thankless profession.

Every time you go to work, you are honestly saving someone's lives. There's people that I have taken to jail that I have seen later out in a social setting who have come up to me and said, thank you.

That's what we do it for. You do it because -- we don't do it because we want a thank you, but we do it because we just want to see a difference and a change and we want to be part of that change that we want to see.

BALDWIN: It's thankless. And let me take this moment on national TV just to say thank you. Thank you for doing this.

You also talk in this piece about the stories. And I hear this from viewers and on Twitter all the time, all these stories that aren't making headlines, right, that involve law enforcement. You have a dangerous job. How much of your job on a daily basis involve these dramatic encounters that we have been covering?

SANDERS: Every day is a dangerous encounter.

I mean, I open my front door and I look to my left and to my right. I mean, I have my weapon with me at all times when I'm in my house, every traffic stop. You don't know what's going to happen.

I mean, the job is endless danger. It's something we chose to do, but I don't think there's one faction of being a police officer that is safe. You're not safe in your car. You're not safe in the office anymore. You're not safe anywhere. The job is dangerous all the time.

BALDWIN: With this sense, Anwar, of endless danger, I want to ask you if you enter any neighborhoods, whether it's intentional or not, with some kind of a bias, whether it's you, whether it's white officers.

Can you hold that thought for me? I have so much more for you. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: And we're back with officer Anwar Sanders, who also wrote a piece for CNN.com about his reaction to his letter to these African- American protesters.

So, you have thought about this over the commercial break.

And, again, if you are just joining us, my question to officer Sanders is, what about -- let me begin with your fellow officers. In your heart of hearts, do you believe that some of them enter certain neighborhoods, deal with certain people with an inherent bias?

SANDERS: I don't.

I honestly do not think that anybody that I work with or anybody that I have seen goes into any neighborhood or situation with a bias. The bias comes or any type of attitude comes from the delivery of the person that we're interacting with.

We get a friendly encounter, the interaction is going to be friendly. It doesn't matter the neighborhood. If the person approaches us with the wrong type of attitude or anything like that, that's what sparks that initial confrontation. I don't -- I have never seen it from any of my colleagues go into a situation or neighborhood prejudging it or anyone in it.

BALDWIN: Could be the richest of the rich neighborhood, the poorest of the poor, your point, your reaction is predicated upon however the person is treating you. That's an interesting thought.

Let me just end with how you end your piece. Will you read the part about solutions and how we all can help fix this?

SANDERS: I can.

"What law enforcement individuals and our communities need is to become better at engaging each other at the local and personal level. Challenge yourself to have a human discussion with the cop patrolling your neighborhood, just as you would with local shopkeepers. It's time we all become a little more human in each other's eyes."

BALDWIN: What should those -- I thought it was great idea to just actually have a conversation with police officers who are out there protecting us. What should those conversations look like?

SANDERS: You know, this is like the main point for me.

The point is, we have people in Ferguson marching about the stuff in New York. We have people in Albuquerque marching about the stuff in Ferguson. And with all -- and they're marching about the officers in that particular area, when they don't really have a complaint, or maybe they do, with the officers right at their own -- in their own local community.

But at the same time, they can't name one officer in the whole community. And these are the same people you call them for service and they come in your house. You call them for service and they are all around your backyard.

These are the same people you see daily, and they can't even name their first name. So I think to answer your question, the conversation should just be a normal conversation. We're normal people. We have a very hard job, a very challenging job. We have to be every profession at one time.

But it's just an easy conversation. Just say hi. We're not demons. We're not evil people. We're not heartless. We're just regular men and women that are just at work. Just come talk to us. We will laugh and we will hang out. I will go play basketball, anything. Just come to talk to us and say hi, whatever -- whatever we can do.

BALDWIN: Deal. Deal. You got a deal.

It's a thankless profession. Again, thank you, officer Anwar Sanders live in New Mexico. Appreciate your candor.

SANDERS: Thank you.

BALDWIN: You got it.

Quick reminder, any minute now, congressional staffers will stand up. They will be walking off their jobs. They are trying to send a powerful message. We will explain why they won't be working coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)