Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Sony Decides to Shelf "The Interview" After Threats; Convicted Cop Killer Hiding in Cuba

Aired December 18, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: You win this round, North Korea, but the White House says it's, quote, "working tirelessly" to bring the forces behind a cyber-assault on Sony Pictures to justice.

Plus, with the U.S. and Cuba now putting their cold war behind them, a fugitive cop killer soon could be feeling the heat.

And 70 years after the state of South Carolina executed this 14-year- old boy, a judge says the trial was a farce, the sentence was cruel and the conviction just cannot stand.

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

The United States of America is set to announce that, indeed, North Korea is behind the cyber terrorism that has prompted Sony Pictures to shelf its movie "The Interview." CNN is also learning now how the regime is -- actually was able to pull this off. A secret team of cyber warriors with the name Bureau 121.

Sony won't release "The Interview," even on the Internet or on demand. Theater chains wouldn't touch it because of threats of 9/11-styled attacks on cinemas. And the fallout reportedly has doomed another Hollywood project as well. A Steve Carell thriller set in Pyongyang is said to now be out of development.

Sony's stock is rebounding as the cyber drama subsides, but the company will still lose out on tens of millions of dollars at the box office. And joining me to talk about the impact, not only these hacks, call them hacks, call them terror threats, what they're having on Sony and the industry in general, joining me, CNN's senior media correspondent Brian Stelter, CNN business correspondent and host of "Quest Means Business," Richard Quest, and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

Brian Stelter, first to you, the fallout throughout the industry and Sony's response as well.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: A lot of anger this morning. You know, screen writers and directors and actors and stars all saying, this is a very chilling moment for freedom of expression. Let me read you what Jimmy Kimmel said. He said, "this is an un- American act of cowardice that validates terrorist actions and sets a terrifying precedent." I think that sums it up perfectly.

BANFIELD: And then what about within Sony? Are they all seemingly on the same page?

STELTER: There's some relief and there's some concern about why this movie was made in the first place. I've sensed some anger among rank and file employees who say, why were Seth Rogen and James Franco and the filmmakers allowed to go down this path in the first place? On the other hand, if they had chosen not to make this Kim Jong-un and some fictional character instead, wouldn't that have been self-censorship?

BANFIELD: And then, Richard Quest -

RICHARD QUEST, HOST, CNN'S "QUEST MEANS BUSINESS": Yes.

BANFIELD: Look, the millions that are lost, I mean I suppose you've got the accurate number of what this is going to cost Sony.

QUEST: Well, we don't know.

BANFIELD: Really?

QUEST: We don't know because you've got the cost of the movie, whatever the movie costs. You've then got the cost of the distribution. You've then got the cost of any lawsuits that will come from employees. Probably not too much on that side of it. But you've got - and you've got the reputational damage.

Now, at Sony headquarters in Tokyo, they will be circling -- they are circling the wagons as they try to work out where to put this into the Sony empire, this debacle, because Sony has had many problems in terms of its televisions it (INAUDIBLE), in terms of its various hardwares, in terms of all -- every aspect of the Sony empire, the largest level, has been in trouble. And SPE was one of the less bad areas. I mean it's a relative phrase.

STELTER: Yes. Yes.

QUEST: Its wasn't as bad as some of the technology parts.

BANFIELD: As the others.

QUEST: Now we're talking a serious amount of money and we'll see the numbers when we get the results.

BANFIELD: If someone's watching right now and thinking, look, yes, it's big, but this is just one company, why such a big fuss over one company, one incident. There's a huge American economy out there that we all have to be worried about. This is a concern, isn't it? Aren't there other, not only entertainment companies, but companies throughout America who are starting to realize, I think this is a new dawning of an age, right?

QUEST: Hang on.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Precedent. That's what's significant.

BANFIELD: Precedent. JACKSON: The precedent that it sets for everybody else. And so you

have one company, of course, but then there's messages to others. Do they follow suit or do they say, we are America, the land of the free, the home of the brave and, as a result of that, we do and we live how we like.

STELTER: Even our parent company here, Time Warner, owns a giant movie studio and they're thinking the same thoughts as everybody else, that this is concerning about the future.

BANFIELD: Everybody is going to start investing in cyber security now.

QUEST: It's - well, they are already. Anybody who's not --

BANFIELD: Not enough.

QUEST: It's got everything this -

JACKSON: Apparently.

QUEST: It's got everything. It's got the entertainment industry and First Amendment. It's got legal and questions of privacy in terms of e-mails. It's got business economics finance in terms of, how could anybody not protect such an important asset. And, crucially, it goes to the very heart of the new economy.

BANFIELD: How we live.

QUEST: Yes. That's why this is so important.

JACKSON: And -

BANFIELD: And, you know, well, for anybody who was calling this a hack, is this really a hack or is this terrorism? Just flat out terrorism?

STELTER: A couple of weeks ago Sony executives privately started calling it a terrorist act. And at the time it was sort of hard to understand why. But they felt like they were the victims of an ideological attack and they felt a sense of unity as a result. Now I think we all understand why they were using that phrase and I think that sense of unity is framed as we see class-action lawsuits against the company and as we see staffers say, why was this movie allowed to be made.

JACKSON: And, liability issues, right? What about those liability issues? Now, Sony's in a tough position. Why? Because you're darned if you do, you're darned if you don't. And what am I talking about? You say, you know what, we'll release the movie. People will go to the movie and then goodness forbid something happens. You were on notice that it would have happened, so why did you release it? You don't release it and then you're attacked for pay (ph). You're cow towing to terrorists. Very difficult position to be in.

QUEST: When this was merely a story about catty comments concerning Angelina Jolie - BANFIELD: Sure. Of course.

QUEST: It was hee, hee, hee, Hollywood gossip.

JACKSON: Right.

QUEST: But now it is not.

BANFIELD: Now it's not.

QUEST: Now it is a full frontal assault on the way the west leads its life.

BANFIELD: You know, and, Joey, back to this point about the liability.

JACKSON: Right.

BANFIELD: Let's just say, for talking purposes Sony did not capitulate, they opened that theater and God didn't forbid and there was an attack, would they have been liable because perhaps the best practice wasn't followed? They had a warning and they chose not to follow it.

JACKSON: See, Ashleigh, that's always the issue. And there's a Maximum (ph) law it says the risk perceived is the duty defined. What does that mean? It means you're on notice of a risk. What is that risk? That there will be chaos, that there will be terrorism, that there will be destruction, and so, therefore, the risk perceived, we perceive it, is the duty defined. What's your duty? To keep people safe. To ensure that no one goes into harm's way. And so if they do go into harm's way, you better believe that lawyers are going to be suing because of the fact that people are --

BANFIELD: I've got to wrap it.

STELTER: Well let's - let's be honest, it's more dangerous than driving a car to the theater than it was to go see the movie.

JACKSON: Right.

QUEST: We don't know that.

BANFIELD: We don't know that.

QUEST: And that's the risk defined.

BANFIELD: And you know what --

JACKSON: That's the risk defined.

QUEST: That's the risk defined.

BANFIELD: The more this happens perhaps - the more this happens, the more best practices may be redefined as well.

STELTER: Right. BANFIELD: But, we've got to stop it there, guys. Thank you, all three of you, terrific input into a very serious and developing story. Brian Stelter, Richard Quest and Joey Jackson, thank you.

North Korea spilled a lot of secrets from Sony. Just ahead, a former insider is going to return the favor. A North Korean defector talks about Kim Jong-un's network of hackers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: A North Korean defector, who once worked as a government computer expert, tells CNN that Pyongyang is running a vast network of hackers who target that country's perceived enemies. Jung Se-Yul attended North Korea's military college for computer science and he says for all of North Korea's shortcomings and limitations, and there are many, the hacker network is a major threat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUNG SE-YUL, NORTH KOREAN DEFECTOR (through translator): Cyberattack capability is much more dangerous than nuclear weapons because often it's hard to find the attackers. And low cost in effort, North Korea can cause an incredible impact on many aspects of the targeting society, politically, economically and militarily.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Some of Hollywood's elites are accusing Sony of caving in to the terrorists. Here's what a famed writer, Aaron Sorkin, told the "L.A. Times." "Today, the U.S. succumbed to an unprecedented attack on our most cherished bedrock principle."

Joining me now to talk about that are CNN's chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, along with CNN national security analyst Fran Townsend.

Fran, I want to begin with you, if I can. I think we are all seemingly migrating from this word hacking to a far more serious word, and that is cyber terror, cyberattack or cyber terror. And it seems to me that officials may be headed there too. Is this way too late?

FRAN TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I -- look, I do think that you're going to see more discussion of cyber - that this was an act of cyber terrorism. Why? Because you see an affirmative offensive act that's been undertaken in an attempt to influence a political or policy outcome on the part of Sony. By the way, it was successful. Look, this is dealing with a bully. So what you've got is, when you deal with a bully, you want to punch him in the nose, not cower and cave under your desk, which is what Sony's done. I think there's real reason to be concerned about the way Sony's handled this.

Sony is acting, let's be clear, in their own self-interests. They hated the leaks. These were embarrassing to them. I think they worry about a legal liability issue, a little different than when you talked about in the last segment. Look, they've got stars, they've got employees, they've got all sorts of people whose personal information and -- could be embarrassing, put at risk, could defame them, and so I think they're much more -- they made a business judgment. Better to endure the risk of canning this movie than enduring the lawsuits from people like Angelina Jolie that could cost them much, much more.

BANFIELD: So, Jim, I want to take this up to a bigger level than this just being an issue of an individual company and its problems because it seems to me that that's what the administration is deeming this. This is an individual issue. This is not an American issue. But if it were to become more of an American issue, now that we've actually had threats made and state sponsored threats, it's growing -- it's looking more to be, what can America actually do about this?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, and to be clear, Ashleigh, I think the administration is moving closer to making this more than a company issue by naming and shaming North Korea, which we were told will likely happen today, perhaps tomorrow, as being behind this attack. That's a step. And that is one step that they can do, is just publicly saying, North Korea did it, you did it, and we know you did it. That's one step.

But beyond that, there are more steps that the administration can take. One is to follow the path that they did with China when they identified this military unit in a building in Shanghai that they led to as being behind cyberattacks on the U.S. and they even followed through with criminal charges against particular individuals who, listen, the U.S. is never going to put in a court of law here. They're never going to get them here. But it was certainly a step that China took very seriously and frankly angered China. That's another possibility.

But there are also further economic sanctions that the U.S. can put on North Korea that can be very effective and very costly for this regime, just as this cyberattack was very costly for a major American movie studio. You know, we think of North Korea as an already heavily sanctioned country, which it is, but there are additional steps you can take, similar to the kinds of steps you took with Iran, for instance, which is blocking North Korea from dollar denominated trade, by going after the Chinese banks that deal with them, et cetera. That would have enormous consequences for North Korea as well. So there are a number of things that the U.S. can do and the first step is going to be naming and shaming North Korea.

BANFIELD: So, Fran, this quickly migrated over the course of a week from the embarrassing e-mails to the threat against people's safety and security. And I -- my question to you is this, this was just Sony. There is so much cyber security that is in the hands of the public sector. Are we confident that there isn't going to be a lot more potential damage in the offings now that we've seen the effect of this one? I mean this could go to banks. This could go to our water supplies. This could go throughout the country if it was that easy?

TOWNSEND: That's right, Ashleigh. And, in particular, the financial services sector underwent (ph) dedicated denial of service attacks. That's where you just can't get to their website, as opposed to having things destroyed. But this is exactly what the financial sector services is worried about. Look, this is more than just embarrassing for Sony. There is 100

terabytes of data that was taken from them. Let's put that in perspective. That's ten times the size of the entire Library of Congress. You don't take that overnight or over the course of several days or weeks. They were inside Sony's system undetected, undeterred and unmolested for months. I mean this had to have been going on for months. And Sony's worried that, frankly, not only with what they got, with the embarrassing fact that they failed to protect their networks.

In 2007, their chief information security officer made a statement that it's a legitimate business decision for Sony to decide it's more expensive to prevent this sort of thing and they just bear the burdened, the cost, of having to deal with it after the fact. I suppose today they're thinking that was a bad business (INAUDIBLE).

BANFIELD: Big decision, yes, a big, bad decision. You know, hindsight's 20/20.

Jim, just quickly, is the administration, and if they are when, would the administration be moving more towards the notion that this is not just a corporate issue for one company, but it is really more of an issue that perhaps the administration needs to become more mired in?

SCIUTTO: Well, that announcement could come as soon as today or tomorrow. But just echoing Fran's point, no one should fool themselves that these vulnerabilities didn't exist and that we didn't know they existed because there's another country right across the border from North Korea, China, that is habitually, for years, and repeatedly, infiltrated American private companies, military contractors, government departments, to great profit for Chinese state-owned businesses and also to great benefit for the Chinese government. There's a reason why China's new stealth fighter aircraft looks a lot like America's stealth fighter aircraft. The belief being that some of the secrets may have been stolen.

You know, this has happened for years and it's something that American officials, American companies have been aware of. And it's really something that they have to stand up to, but also protect themselves better against.

BANFIELD: Jim Sciutto, Fran Townsend, thank you for your insight. Appreciate it.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about what the United States' policy change regarding Cuba is actually going to mean for Americans and Cubans. But the FBI is hoping that it means one thing, and that is apprehension of this woman. The only female on the most wanted terrorist list. You heard right. That woman was convicted of killing a police officer in the United States decades ago. She bolted for, you guessed it, Cuba. So now that things are warming up, will that mean an extradition? Will America get her back? Details just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Still feels a bit weird and it doesn't sound real yet, normal relations between the United States and Cuba. Think about it. People traveling between the two countries, buying and selling goods and services, embassies in Washington and Havana. A 54-year-old economic blockade finally eased, maybe even lifted, wait on that. The leaders, Obama and Castro, surprising all of us yesterday with simultaneous announcements that were mostly welcomed around the world. Of course, of course this being a major political issue, it certainly does have its critics though. People who say the timing is bad, the deal was poorly made, and those who say Cuba and the United States can never be friends if Cuba continues to do the things it does.

Well, there's millions and millions of things to sort out between the two countries, like when will people actually be able to make the trip? Who's going to be able to do business? What business? And what can be imported and exported? And there's more than a few sticky legal messes to sort out as well. They really demand attention, in fact. And I'm going to talk about one of them right now because it's about as serious as it gets in the criminal justice system.

This woman, Joanne Chesimard, a convicted cop killer who broke out of prison, she's the first woman to ever be on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists. And, you guessed it, she's kicking back in Cuba and the FBI really wants her back in America. Heather Hansen, a trial attorney and criminal defense attorney is here, Joey Jackson, HLN's legal analyst is here.

OK, so now kumbayah with Cuba, does that mean that maybe, just maybe, they'll send her back if we ask nicely enough, Heather?

HEATHER HANSEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I would have thought if that was going to happen we would have heard it already because we've already heard about some exchange of some prisoners and this particular woman causes a lot of upset. There are a lot of issues with regards to her conviction. A lot of people said her conviction was unfair. A lot of people consider her sort of a racial -- someone to look up to. And so there's a lot of issues with regard to her conviction that make it a political issue for Obama that maybe something, given the environment right now, that he doesn't want to touch.

BANFIELD: OK, so I was only six when she killed this trooper on the New Jersey turnpike. Andi will say killed because she's been convicted of it.

HANSEN: That's right.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

BANFIELD: I was not there in the courtroom. I cannot speak to the evidence. I cannot speak to the trial. I've seen a lot of bad trials. I've seen a lot of good trials.

HANSEN: Right.

BANFIELD: But the fact, as they've been reported, have been that she shot this trooper in the head twice with his own service revolver.

JACKSON: That's right. HANSEN: That's right.

BANFIELD: And she had some accomplices who helped her bust out of prison and make for Cuba. The political asylum, Joey -

JACKSON: Yes.

BANFIELD: Political asylum was what is she was granted.

JACKSON: Yes, she was. And that's why, listen, relations have been frosty for a long time with Cuba and the United States, but this is the dawning of a new day. And, you know, to your point, Ashleigh, none of us were there in the courtroom. We don't know what happened. But we do know that we have a system of justice and we respect and rely upon that and we know that she was convicted as a result. We also know that she was sentenced and she was serving a life sentence when she broke out of jail.

BANFIELD: Yes.

JACKSON: So the issue then becomes, should she now be brought back to be held accountable and be put in jail? And, you know, I would say never say never. If there was a time --

BANFIELD: Oh, really?

JACKSON: Yes.

BANFIELD: OK.

JACKSON: I say, if there was a time when, you know, you're looking for good faith between the two countries, we're looking to thaw these diplomatic relation, now might be an ideal time, even in the absence of an extradition treaty, obviously, you know, generally those extradition treaties that provide one country for another the terms and conditions upon which people are going to be exchanged. But even in the absence of that, maybe upon a showing of a good faith, the dawning of a new day -

HANSEN: Right.

JACKSON: They'll turn her over. New Jersey would be happy.

BANFIELD: So they went after her before. They tried extradition and it failed.

JACKSON: With the pope, no less.

HANSEN: Right.

BANFIELD: Well, you know what, a different pope. This was back in 1998.

JACKSON: Yes. Right.

BANFIELD: Back in '98. And I guess the question I have is this, it's not a death penalty case, so that changes everything. If it's a death penalty case I'd say, look, good luck with that. That doesn't happen.

JACKSON: Right.

HANSEN: Right.

BANFIELD: But there's a $2 million reward.

HANSEN: Right.

BANFIELD: And I'm thinking, for the Cubans, they might qualify for the $2 million reward.

HANSEN: Yes. Well, and you would think that, as a part of the political process, and as Joey said, just as a showing of good faith, they'd want to do it. However, she claims that it was an all-white jury, that she didn't get a fair trial, and that she wouldn't be able to get a fair trial. My call for her is, come back and see, because that's the way that our system works. You're an American. You've been convicted here. And come back and go through the process as opposed to hiding out in Cuba and living the life.

BANFIELD: Yes.

HANSEN: That's what should happen here.

JACKSON: Ideally it should, but, you know, that's going to fall on deaf ears. She has asylum. She's there. She's living a life. Why take the risk? And so it's a political football.

BANFIELD: And from a lot of the pictures, she looks like she's having a great life. Certainly (ph) looks like a nice place to visit.

HANSEN: That's right. I mean she's a domestic terrorist living the life in Cuba.

BANFIELD: Living the high life. Well, let's follow this one and let's make sure that -

JACKSON: Not like she'd be living if she was in the jail cell in New Jersey, that's for sure.

HANSEN: That's for -

BANFIELD: Heck no. I can say that for sure.

Thank you both, Heather Hansen, Joey Jackson.

JACKSON: Thank you, Ashleigh.

HANSEN: Thank you.

BANFIELD: So, by the way, like any good espionage drama, the United States/Cuba negotiations and the bombshell agreement that followed, really ripe with some pretty delicious details. For instance, CNN has learned that Tuesday night officials at the U.S. interest section in Havana threw a party for local diplomats and dignitaries and journalists. That was very nice of them. Who they very much wanted to distract from the events that were just about to break wide open. The White House didn't even tell the Pentagon that it was taking an airplane to Havana in the wee hours yesterday. That's kind of the thing that the Pentagon would want to know about, you would think. Instead, the officials went to the presidential fleet based at Joint Base Andrews to bring home the American contractor and former Cuban prisoner Alan Gross. Just a little round the corner and through the night secretly. President Obama and Castro gave credit to Pope Francis for keeping gentle pressure on all sides. And a short time ago the pope spoke at the Vatican.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

POPE FRANCIS (through translator): And today we are all happy because yesterday we saw two nations, who were estranged for so many years, take a step to bring them closer together. This was achieved by ambassadors, by diplomacy. Yours is a noble - very noble work. I hope it will be fruitful and may God bless you. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: The pope wrote letters to both presidents over the summer urging them to work towards warming their relations. And, by the way, yesterday was the pope's 78th birthday. So happy birthday to the pope. And big shout out to the Canadians as part of the diplomatic dealers as well.

Now to another big international story, a terror attack on a village in Nigeria. More than 100 women and children kidnapped. We've got the details on that straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)