Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Obama Asks for Authorization; Americans Leave Embassy in Yemen; Three Muslim Students Killed in North Carolina; Eddie Ray Routh to Mount Insanity Defense

Aired February 11, 2015 - 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: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

Six months after U.S. fighter jets started blasting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the Obama administration is formally asking Congress for the authorization of military force. A measure sent to Capitol Hill this morning would expire three years after passage. It specifically would not authorize, quote, "enduring offensive ground combat." It would not authorize that. And it would repeal the Iraq War Authorization of 2002.

President Obama will talk about all of this live at 3:30 Eastern Time. CNN will carry that live, so tune in and you will get the complete story as it happens.

Also, on The Hill today, a House committee is looking at the flow of foreign jihadis into Syria. The head of the National Counterterrorism Center estimates more than 20,000 fighters from more than 90 different countries are now swelling the ranks of the world's most ruthless terrorist group.

And we're learning new details today of Kayla Mueller's ordeal as an ISIS hostage. We now know the young American's family tried to negotiate a prisoner swap. And U.S. forces tried to rescue Kayla and other hostages but apparently just missed them.

I want to begin this hour at the White House and the request from the president that Congress just might actually pass. Our Michelle Kosinski is standing by live.

So, where are we in the process, what is the protocol and what do we expect to happen?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Ashleigh.

Well, this will have to be voted on by Congress. But we saw today the language put out there by the president. It's basically legislative language for Congress to act upon, either adopt it or not or change it, try to, as they see fit. And the question has really been, what kind of leeway do you give to the president in fighting ISIS and then what kind of limits do you put on it? And you really see the balance in here in this language. First of all, putting a three-year cap on it. Leaving in place the

2002 authorization -- repealing the 2002 authorization of military force relating to the war in Iraq, but leaving in place the 2001 authorization that -- what was designed for al Qaeda and its affiliates. So it's interesting that they left that in place. I mean that's the authorization that the president has been working under to fight ISIS up until this point. But you can see why, you know, al Qaeda is still a threat, so are its affiliates. So that stays in place for now. And some Democrats even opposed leaving that there.

Other leeway that exists, geographic. There are no limits put on where the White House can go after ISIS. Also in those aligned with this terrorist group, those fighting alongside ISIS, that's also out there. So the big limit is, as you mentioned, the use of combat troops. The language within the authorization request is -- does not authorize enduring offensive ground combat operations. And the president explained a little further in the letter that he included with this, saying that it wouldn't authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like those conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, you know, that's the limit, but it would potentially leave the window open for shorter-term, smaller-scale ground combat operations. So we expect the president to shed a little more light on his thinking there as well, Ashleigh, when we hear from him later this afternoon.

BANFIELD: Yes, I'm just looking a little deeper into some of that language. The devil's always in the details. And I'm noticing as well that there would be an authorization for U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended, such as intelligence collection and sharing or - and I like this one, Michelle, missions to enable kinetic strikes. This idea that if you want to strike and strike well, you've got to have someone on the ground to bring in those targets and to make it clear.

KOSINSKI: Right.

BANFIELD: Can I just ask you one quick question?

KOSINSKI: Sure. Sure.

BANFIELD: Because there is also a piece of - there's a piece of prose in here that refers to 2001 because everyone needs to be clear, there was an authorization for what happened in Afghanistan, there was an authorization for what happened later in Iraq and now they're talking about at some point getting rid of the authorization for forces -- for the use of force in Afghanistan, too.

KOSINSKI: Right.

BANFIELD: Is this a priority, though?

KOSINSKI: It's really confusing, you know? And I think this part is interesting because for a long time the White House has been saying, yes, it's appropriate to repeal that, mainly because it's focused on al Qaeda and its affiliates. It's been around for more than a decade. But it gives the White House all the authorization it says it needs to fight ISIS. That's been debated. I mean ISIS is considered an offshoot of al Qaeda, even though they broke ranks, really.

So it still exists. The White House eventually wants to repeal it. But then when you look at the language within that 2001 authorization, you know - and, today, al Qaeda and its affiliates are still considered a threat. So what the White House ultimately wants to do is then tailor it further, mainly because it's just old. Let's tailor everything, is the thinking now, to the threats at hand. So repeal that 2001 one eventually, but maybe make something that is more shaped for the modern fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates.

BANFIELD: Yes. Well, things will tend to change in 14 years, that can happen. Michelle Kosinski working it for us at the White House. Thank you for that.

Don't forget, we're going to have live coverage of the president's statement about the authorization for the use of military force at 3:30 Eastern Time this afternoon. We'll take you live to the White House for all of that action.

There's also some pretty ominous news for Americans coming out of Yemen today. It's the home of the single most dangerous branch of al Qaeda and also, until last month, a very critical United States ally. Not only do the United States and British embassies now have closed signs effectively on their doors, they're shutting down, but the Shiite militia that toppled Yemen's government reportedly has now seized the weapons of the American Marines trying to leave the country and then confiscated the staff members' cars.

So I want to go live now to CNN's Jim Sciutto, my colleague, who's following these developments in Washington, and our terrorism analyst, Paul Cruickshank, joining me here live in New York.

Jim, first to you, what is the status of the -- I'm not sure I should call it an evacuation, but what's the status of all of the American personnel and the effort to get them out of that country safely? Are they out? And if not, how are they getting out?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: All the embassy personnel is out. They're out safely. It wasn't not a military evacuation. They were able to go out without a military evacuation, although it was under the control, including with those U.S. Marines there, making sure everything was safe. But it's an exit. You know, it was necessary. U.S. officials decided, because of the declining security situation on the ground, but not the proudest exit. You know have -- we're expecting later today Houthi rebels have taken over the capital of Sanaa, to take over the U.S. embassy there. You're going to see some images of those rebels inside the U.S. embassy compound, which is in effect American territory.

I'm told by U.S. officials that the embassy personnel took all the necessary security steps as they left. They would have destroying documents, computer files, et cetera. But, you know, this is a - this is a -- not the proudest exit made for the right decisions, for the right reasons. But it's a loss as well because, you know, an embassy is more about delivering visas on the ground, right? I mean it's about contacts with the military, political contacts. It's a listening post for intelligence. You don't have that there anymore now.

And I'll tell you, Ashleigh, the point I would make is, this is one of four countries, four key countries now in the region where U.S. embassies are closed. Look at that, you've got Yemen, closed as of today, Syria because of the ongoing war there, Tripoli here in Libya, of course, after the tragedy in Benghazi, but also the declining situation there, and for a number of years now in Somalia. And these are not just countries we don't care about. These are countries that are hotbeds of terrorist groups. As you mentioned, AQAP in Yemen, ISIS in Syria, other fighters in Libya, Somalia, to not have that U.S. presence on the ground at the embassies, that's a loss.

BANFIELD: All right, hold that thought for a moment. I want to bring in some analysis on this. Paul Cruickshank, the idea that the U.S. military is still remaining in Yemen, I don't know where, I don't know how that happens when this critical and strategic place is now so endangered, they have to get everybody out. And then just that map that Jim put up with four critical spaces that now do not have that -- what is the downside not only for America to have that loss, but also for those countries not to have that kind of diplomacy anywhere near their ranks?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, it's clearly a significant setback because you don't have all that face-to-face contact in Yemen. And just this last --

BANFIELD: But is it really for them a setback?

CRUICKSHANK: It is. It is absolutely a setback not to have a functioning embassy in Yemen given how important that battle is against al Qaeda there. And also not to have a good relationship with the powers that be now, the Houthis. I mean just this last summer, the Obama administration was holding up Yemen as a model for counterterrorism strategy, working with the Yemeni government against al Qaeda in Yemen. It's a very, very dangerous affiliate there. But now that's all in tatters.

This relationship now has clearly broken down with the Houthis. Not clear if the Houthi leadership signed off on this provocation or it was sort of rank and file members who seized these vehicles. But clearly a crisis when it comes to the relationship between the United States and the powers that be in Yemen. That's going to make it difficult to go after al Qaeda. And, of course, al Qaeda is taking advantage of all this turmoil in Yemen and its priority still is to hit the United States - hit United States planes.

BANFIELD: Oh, I harken back to the most famous closure, emergency closure, hostages being taken obviously in Iran, and that has been decades. So I asked you that question only because, for Iran, it sure didn't seem to bother them in the least that they didn't have an American presence there, they thrived without it. They've maintained that kind of stranglehold over their people without it. And that's why I wonder, in these four circumstances that Jim showed us, are these going to be extraordinarily long closures, upwards of 40 years? CRUICKSHANK: I don't think so. I don't think there's a parallel with

the Iran situation when it comes to the Houthis.

BANFIELD: No.

CRUICKSHANK: The leadership of the Houthis, despite all these anti- American slogan the group has got, are actually relatively pragmatic. They've been reaching out to the Americans. They want to find common cause with the Americans to cooperate against al Qaeda. It's very much a common enemy from the Houthi point of view. But clearly this is a huge setback today in the relationship between the Houthis and the United States. This is clearly a provocation. I think we might expect the Houthi leadership to criticize this, to clamp down on this kind of behavior. But this is clearly going to really upset Washington, D.C.

BANFIELD: All right, Paul Cruickshank, thank you for that. Jim Sciutto, our thanks to you as well with your reporting.

We're going to continue to watch that story for you.

In the meantime, we've also got this story. Three college students - college students gunned down, execution-style, in North Carolina. Was it because of their religion or was it because of a dispute over a parking spot? The tragic turn of events next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: A North Carolina man is facing three counts of first-degree murder today just hours after three Muslim students were shot in the head near the campus of UNC Chapel Hill. Our Joe Johns is in Washington with what many suspect was a hate crime but what may have been a disagreement over a parking spot. It's hard to even put those two sentences together, but, Joe, what is the story here that's leading anyone to think either of those two theories?

JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're still just getting the outlines from this, but we know from police that there was apparently a dispute over a parking space. Now, these three victims were shot in the head. We do know that. We do know that this individual who was arrested is cooperating with the police. We do know that this is an individual who has had some postings on FaceBook. He's apparently an atheist. He's been critical of religion, but he's been critical of both Islam and Christianity as well.

We also know that the police, in the very same statement where they said this was just a dispute over parking, they also said they are aware of the concerns in the community about the possibility of this being a hate crime and that they intend to investigate that fully. So those are the things we know right now. Police apparently are talking to this individual and hope to know more, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: And then what do we know about these victims? I'm looking at the ages. They look like kids to me.

JOHNS: Right.

BANFIELD: Nineteen, 21, 23. What's the story here?

JOHNS: OK. Well, they were all shot in the head. A young married couple and a sister, all students. Barakat was a second-year dentistry student and apparently raising money to provide dental care to Syrian refugees in Turkey. One was at North Carolina State. Another at UNC. The third planning to enter UNC dentistry school. And, of course, because of those facts, because of their religion, so much of the information that has gotten out there has just gone viral because of questions about whether the religion might have had something to do with it, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: All right, Joe Johns following that really tragic story for us, UNC Chapel Hill, thank you. Thank you, Joe.

"American Sniper" is still playing in theaters around the country. But if you've seen it, you remember that last scene, kind of stops right at the death of Chris Kyle. So the sequel actually might just be playing out live in a Texas courtroom starting today. Up next, the opening statements in the trial of the ex-Marine accused of murdering the now extraordinarily famous Navy SEAL who inspired the movie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: As millions of moviegoers pack into theaters around the country to see "American Sniper," the sequel to that blockbuster may actually be playing out for real right now in a Texas courtroom. Just moments ago, the attorneys gave their opening statements in the murder trial of this man, ex-marine Eddie Ray Routh. He's charged with gunning down the subject of the Clint Eastwood film, Chris Kyle. Not just Kyle, his friend Chad Littlefield, too. The two men were trying to help Routh cope with his posttraumatic stress disorder after the war. When Routh allegedly just shot them dead at a gun range. Now, Routh's attorneys are actually using his PTSD as a defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J. WARREN ST. JOHN, ROUTH'S ATTORNEY: The tragedy that occurred down there while is that while they were attempting to help him, he took their lives. But when he took their lives, he was in the grips of a psychosis. A psychosis so severe at that point in time that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. In fact, he didn't not only know it was wrong, not wrong, he thought, in his mind, at that point in time, that it was either him or them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: CNN's Ed Lavandera was in the court for the opening statements and he's live now with me from Stephenville, Texas.

So I don't think it's any surprise that we heard the statement. Clearly the insanity defense was something we were all expecting. But what else did we learn from these opening statements about the relationship between Chris Kyle and this defendant?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, Ashleigh, what's fascinating about all of this is that from the moment Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield drove to Eddie Ray Routh's house on February 2, 2013 and made the hour and 40 minute drive from Routh's house to the gun range where Kyle and Littlefield were killed, there was talk this morning in the opening statements about, we didn't really know much about what exactly those three men had talked about. Not a lot of details.

But the attorney for Eddie Ray Routh did bring up a text message that Chris Kyle had sent to Chad Littlefield. Picture the scene there. They're in Chris Kyle's pick-up truck. Kyle is driving. Chad Littlefield is in the passenger side sitting right next to Kyle. And Eddie Ray Routh, according to the attorneys, is sitting directly behind Littlefield. And about an hour and a half into the drive, Chris Kyle texts Littlefield next to him and simply says, "this dude is straight-up nuts." And Littlefield texted back to Chris Kyle, unbeknownst to Eddie Ray Routh, "he's right behind me, watch my 6," meaning, watch everything that's going on right behind me. And, of course, prosecutors outline that later on after they had gotten to the gun range that Eddie Ray Routh, according to the prosecutors, has used two different weapons and shot Kyle and Littlefield multiple times, each of them in the back.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Oh. Oh, Ed, that's just awful. Thank you, Ed. Keep us posted on the rest of this coverage. It's unusual coverage, I know. The cameras can't be live all the time in the courtroom, so we'll rely heavily on you as this continues.

I want to go on a little deeper as to the significance of what Ed just reported, that text message. Our legal panel is with me right now, Paul Callan and Danny Cevallos.

So this is the first time I'm hearing this that there was that text message, guys, from one of the deceased in the car to the other saying, this guy is straight-up nuts. We all know that you can be crazy but not be legally insane, but does that text message from the dead now help in his defense, Paul?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, atmospherically, it does because they're trying to establish, of course, that he had a psychosis which rendered him unable to know the difference between right and wrong. Texas is a very difficult insanity defense. You have to show that you didn't know what you were doing was wrong when you pulled the trigger and killed somebody.

BANFIELD: And that you couldn't understand the nature and consequence - and the nature of your (INAUDIBLE), yes, of the action.

CALLAN: And nature and consequences of the act. And it's very hard with a guy who planned and had a gun and went to a range and knows what a gun does to say he didn't know that pulling the trigger while aiming at another human being is wrong. So they're trying to say his psychosis is the defense here though.

BANFIELD: And clearly I am so confused by these opening statement, all within the same sentence, Danny, not only does he say he has a psychosis so severe that effectively he didn't know right from wrong, and so severe that he determined it was either him or them which, to me, suggests you do know that something wrong is about to happen but you're going to self-defend. That's a whole other argument. What are they doing here?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Since its introduction into the DSM-III in 1984, PTSD has been used in a variety of ways in defending in criminal cases. One has been to establish insanity, but it's also been used to establish self-defense to negate mens rea but with very mixed results. Some courts have rejected it outright and other courts have accepted it and allowed a jury to render a verdict on it. Overall, for the most part, PTSD is hardly a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to insanity because, remember, and this is critically important, when we talk about wrongfulness, the test is not whether or not you subjectively thought something was right or wrong. The test is whether or not you're aware that society deems it to be wrong. And if you hide a body or throw away a gun, that's all evidence that you're aware of the wrongfulness of your actions.

BANFIELD: Well, he didn't hide, but he certainly left. He certainly took off. But just one quick clarification, Paul. He apparently said things to his sister. You know, he came to her and said something. Doesn't that sort of support the notion that maybe he didn't think it was so wrong if he's openly telling someone, even though it's his sister, that he did this?

CALLAN: Yes, it did. And I think, in the end, this is a Hail Mary pass by the defense to get the jury --

BANFIELD: In Texas, you bet it is.

CALLAN: Well - well, it is. But he's - you know, we've got veterans involved here. And if you just create a sympathetic defendant who maybe because of his military background did something terrible, maybe they'll cut him some slack, the jury, as opposed to a regular civilian.

BANFIELD: You've got a sympathetic victim, a hero, you've got a sympathetic-ish defendant, an ex-Marine, a veteran who's done his time, but you have a state that has two jury pools, one that said Andrea Yates was not insane and one that said Andrea Yates was insane when she drown all five of her children face up in a bathtub. This is the thing. It is so incredibly hard to get people to the -- honestly, Danny, isn't it just, to have a jury say "not guilty," it's just the "not guilty" they can't get over. They're fully aware that they're insane, but they just can't get over the hump of the "not guilty" when they have to render that verdict.

CEVALLOS: Yes, it's very difficult. And in a case like this, I mean any insanity defense is a bit of a Hail Mary in itself because you're essentially admitting to all the other facts that you done did it but that you did it with an excuse. So in any case, there's a huge misconception that people are getting out of jail for free with these insanity defenses and nothing could be further from the truth. They're used in about -

BANFIELD: And they can't be instructed -

CEVALLOS: No.

BANFIELD: That's it, they can't be instructed otherwise. The judge can't look at them and say, now, ladies and gentlemen, he's not going to walk out the back doors of the court. He's going to go through a medical facility and could be put away for the rest - they can't say that to the jury.

CALLAN: No. And jurors are afraid, hey, some psychiatrist is going to let him out in three weeks. That's what they're afraid of.

BANFIELD: And they don't want him to walk out the back of the courtroom door.

CALLAN: Right.

BANFIELD: All right, guys, there's so much more that's still to come on this. And, again, it is like the sequel. If you've seen the movie, it sort of stops right at this moment. And we're now learning what the further details were. Danny, Paul, thank you for that.

You have probably heard this news. It's awkward for so many of us because it's our business we're reporting on and one of the stars in our business. Many in our business know him personally, Brian Williams. And now we know this, he is off the air for six months for embellishing war stories. So it's being called a six-month suspension, but with his credibility in question, can this man return to the anchor chair? More, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)