Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Jihadi John Identified as Mohammad Emwazi; ISIS Sympathizers Arrested

Aired February 26, 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. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

Today, a major leap forward in the fight against ISIS. One of their biggest secrets now unmasked. And when you get a peek at the man behind the curtain, you take away a little of their power, perhaps some of their control. Maybe every little bit counts. This is what we're talking about. The person, the killer, who hides his face while doing the most savage things to people who don't deserve it in the name of the Islamic State. Today, the world is learning his name. Stay there, I'm going to tell you that name in a moment. We're going to tell you not only that, but where he comes from, what he did as he was growing up, lots of little details about that guy. That's coming in a moment. But there's plenty to talk about with this ISIS killer who has come to be known as "Jihadi John."

Also today, another development. Wannabe terrorists in the United States stopped before they literally got off the ground. Three men who allegedly wanted to join ISIS. They talked about it. They planned it. But now they're locked up today in New York City and in Florida.

And there is also word today that even though the west is cracking down and closing in on ISIS, they have not stopped their brutal march across Syria and Iraq. We're learning that ISIS captured more hostages in Syria, all of them Christians, men, women, and children. Human rights groups are very, very concerned about this, especially given ISIS' record of how they have treated their hostages in the past.

Now, let's start off with that very long list with one "Jihadi John." Might be a cute, media friendly name for a man who has done things on camera that make you sick. And, remember, two American citizens, James Foley and Steven Sotloff, they were both brutally murdered on video by that very man we're talking about. He speaks English with a British accent. And really it was just a matter of time before someone came out and told investigators they knew exactly who the masked man was.

It looked like that's happened. Atika Shubert is in London. He's live with us now.

So what are we learning and how have we learned about the man who's come to be known as "Jihadi John"?

ATIKA SHUBERT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, U.S. officials have confirmed the name Mohammed Emwazi as the most likely man to be behind that "Jihadi John" character you see in those horrific ISIS videos. And this appears to be the last known address. Now, we've knocked on the door. Nobody from the family has answered. I've spoken to a few neighbors. One of whom has told me that they did know Mohammed Emwazi. That he was a polite young man, in his words. And other neighbors have told us that the family really keeps to themselves, is pretty quiet.

But one group that did know Mohammad Emwazi is CAGE. And this is an advocacy group for a number of people swept up in terror raids and terror suspects. And they said that Mohammed Emwazi came to them in 2009 because he said he was being harassed by MI5. And they compared his case to Michael Adebolajo. You probably remember him. He is the man who actually killed Lee Rigby on the streets of London here in Woolwich. Take a listen to how CAGE explained Mohammed Emwazi's background.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASIM QURESHI, CAGE RESEARCH DIRECTOR: He was such a beautiful young man. Really. You know, it's hard to imagine the trajectory, but it's not a trajectory that's unfamiliar with us -- for us. We've seen Michael Adebolajo, once again somebody that I met, you know, he came to me for help looking to change a situation in the system. When are -- when are we going to finally learn that when we treat people as if they're outsider, they will inevitably feel like outsiders and they will look for belonging elsewhere. Our entire national security strategy for the last 13 years has only increased. Alienation has only increased people feeling like they don't belong. Why? Because a narrative of injustice has taken root.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SHUBERT: Now that is Asim Qureshi. He is the caseworker at CAGE who dealt with Mohammad Emwazi and dealt with him for a number of years after he was prevented from traveling. He tried to go to Kuwait unsuccessfully a number of times. He then tried to change his name and eventually managed to leave the country in either late 2012 or early 2013. And according to CAGE, security service came to his family's home and notified them that their son had traveled to Syria.

Now, you heard from CAGE there, they believe that MI5's alleged harassment had something to do with pushing Emwazi towards this route to Syria. But, of course, there are many aspects of his life that we're still just getting to know now and learn more about.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: I'm glad you ended on that note, Atika, because it's the very topic I want to explore with our next guest. Atika Shubert live for us in London. Thank you.

So right now to Phil Mudd who's here. He's a former CIA counterterrorism official. And also with us Mubin Shaikh, who is a former jihadist himself and then turned former counterterrorism operative. He's also the co-author of this book, "Undercover Jihadi."

Phil, first to you. That very point that Atika just talked about, that this guy, "Jihadi John," through many who have said they know about his former life, was detained, was questioned, was -- had his travel stopped on many occasions and at some point complained about feeling trapped in his own country, feeling that his marriage was derailed because of this. Is it possible that he might have been Guantanamoed? That he might have been radicalized by the very efforts to stop the radicalization?

PHILIP MUDD, CNN COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: Look, there's a couple of things you've got to think about. Most of the cases I've seen, radicalization happens from other individuals who draw someone into a network. It's not just being alienated because you were pulled aside at the airport.

The second thing, we're only -- the second thing is, we're only seeing half of this story. The government doesn't spend the resources and take the risk, the legal risk of pulling somebody aside, preventing them from traveling, searching through their luggage, just because somebody looks funny. There is something else going on here in terms of whatever triggered the government to undertake this investigation that we're missing here.

The last thing I'd say in response to CAGE, you can be alienated. The step between alienating and beheading innocent human beings, excuse me, I don't care about alienation. That is a cultural problem. That does not give you authorization to behead a human being. That's it.

BANFIELD: OK. Mubin Shaikh, maybe you can shed some light on this because as we've been getting sort of background details on this "Jihadi John's" background, real name Mohammad Emwazi, it turns out it's not what we might have expected. Perhaps it's more the person who was well educated, comes from a good background, dressed well, had lots of friends and just happened to be very Islamic. Were you surprised to hear about that kind of person turning into the person that we see in these videos?

MUBIN SHAIKH, FORMER JIHADIST: No, it shouldn't be surprising. We need to -- we need to get off this idea of the profiles and these caricatures or these cookie cutter profiles of individuals who are -- you know, don't have jobs or, you know, are lacking nutela (ph) or something. You know, people are -- everyone is different. Individuals, they have their own lives, they have their own paths, things that impact them in varying degrees. So we should stop looking for this idea that, you know, there's a particular kind of -- they're humans. They're normal human beings who have taken on an ideology, who have linked with a grievance and have mobilized in some way.

And if I could just quickly echo what Phil was saying. You know, this idea that MI5 radicalizes individuals is laughable really. They're doing their job is what they're doing. There aren't that many MI5 officers to go around just pulling off your average random Muslim. There are, you know, many, many Muslims living in the U.K. The vast, vast majority never interact with MI5 and there's a reason for that.

BANFIELD: All right, let me ask a little bit about how significant this person is. And, Phil, maybe you can shed some light. He's famous. He's foul. He's the face or at least the masked face of this organization. But operationally, is finding this guy and dragging him into a U.S. court or taking him out in whatever location he's in, is that important?

MUDD: I think it is. It might not have been 20 years ago because try to imagine him presenting this image in the age before social media. For someone on the fringes who wants to be radicalized today, you might not turn to faceless people you don't know in ISIS, senior operators. You're going to turn to the guy you do know, and that is "Jihadi John." I don't think operationally he's significant. I think in terms of ISIS presenting itself as the place to go if you want to fight in the Middle East, I think he is significant. People are going to post to him on Facebook. He's going to be seen as an avatar.

BANFIELD: What about the propaganda, though, of just getting him?

MUDD: Oh, I agree. That's what I'm saying.

BANFIELD: Yes.

MUDD: I would not target him for operational purposes, I'd target him for propaganda purposes, absolutely

BANFIELD: You'd get him for the purpose of saying, you're not invincible ISIS and you're next.

MUDD: Yes, that's right.

BANFIELD: Anybody else, you could be next.

OK, guys, if you could stay put, there's a lot still to get to. Phil and Mubin, I want to come back to you in just a moment because we're certainly learning a little bit more about three other people now connected somehow perhaps allegedly to ISIS. And this has been foiled by the FBI. Three arrests yesterday in the United States of America. Two states, New York and Florida. So, the question is, how valuable are these three arrests? And how significant may there alleged crimes be? Or they -- could they just possibly be America's dumbest criminals? We're going to find out a lot more about these three in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Now to those wannabe ISIS fighters who were snapped up by the FBI in the United States before they went, quote, "operational." I want you to read along with me. This is an e-mail, believe it or not, that was sent to a pro-ISIS website overseas. And I'll quote. "Is it possible to commit ourselves as dedicated martyrs anyway while we're here? What I'm saying is to shoot Obama and then get shot ourselves, will it do?"

Will it do? Those are the words from one of the three men arrested yesterday on charges that they intended to join ISIS and also do some damage while in this country. They did and said and wrote a lot more than that too. Will Ripley is in Brooklyn, where two of those men lived and worked and allegedly planned terrorist activities right up until the moment they got cuffed yesterday. So, Will, I -- I can't imagine that there isn't some shock and

surprise in the community where you are, co-workers, friends, family, or maybe not. What are we finding out from them?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What's important to understand, Ashleigh, about the Coney Island neighborhood here in Brooklyn, there is a very large Jewish community here. And we see that. We're talking to people in the neighborhood. There are also, we're told, small pockets of Muslims who, in many ways, may not feel as connected to this greater community around them. And, of course, we know that this is exactly the type of group that ISIS is trying to target via social media, trying to reach out to people who may not feel like they fully belong, offering them a chance to be part of something that they sell as a greater mission, a greater life.

And so as we hear about these two men, which all we have to go on right now are these sketches, the courtroom sketches, because despite all their social media activity, we don't -- we haven't been able to find even a single picture of them. We are learning that the 19-year- old, Akhror Saidakhmetov, and the 24-year-old, Abdurasul Juraboev, they really blended into this community. The 24-year-old actually went by the first name Abdullah (ph). That is what we are told by people who work at a gyro shop about 12 blocks from here where he worked and made daily deliveries. Listen to what one man who basically interacted with him every day had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAAD, WORKS AT BROOKLYN GYRO KING: Yes, I was surprised. Like, you don't know -- like they (INAUDIBLE). I do not know what happened, but, yes, normal. Just so -- come in here and go out. But we don't know, like, this guy is like that much crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIPLEY: Saidakhmetov, the 19-year-old, was working at a mall kiosk for a time. And it was actually his boss, the owner of that kiosk, that was allegedly, according to the feds, funneling money to these men. But this is a young man that didn't have the means, Ashleigh, to carry out the kind of attacks that were allegedly talked about online. He actually didn't even have the $900 to buy a direct flight to Turkey. So he paid $571 at a travel agency in this neighborhood to take a different flight, routed through Ukraine. But clearly both of these men, if what's laid out in this criminal complaint is accurate, they were looking for something bigger than what they have here in Brooklyn.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Will Ripley reporting for us live. Thank you for that.

So three arrests yesterday in two different states right here in the union. How many more plots are being hatched right now as we tell you this story? And, by the way, what kind of tools did the feds just lose yesterday by hauling these three guys in? You're about to find out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Some breaking news I want to bring your way and it comes in the way of a photograph because we are now just getting confirmation that a Facebook page photograph of this man is actually Abror Habibov. And if that name isn't familiar, it's going to be very familiar. He is the third person who was arrested yesterday in that triptic (ph) of fellas who got pulled in by the feds on suspicion and now facing charges of material support of terrorism. These were the three allegedly who were off to help ISIS in any way they could. But this particular man, 30 years old, in Florida, and being held there, by the way, this man, the feds allege is the ring leader or at least was the one arranging things, arranging money, making plans, helping to make the trips possible for the other two who were in Brooklyn, the other two being 19-year-old Akhror Saidakhmetov and 24-year-old Abdurasul Juraboev.

So the picture you saw is the third of the suspects. We do not have pictures of the other two, other than what you're seeing, the courtroom sketches, because they made their appearances in Brooklyn yesterday. But these are the three so far that are being alleged in the conspiracy of heading off to wage jihad in Syria or with ISIS brothers, or if it was too difficult to make the trip, to do it right here at home. So the three arrested on charges that they planned and intended to kill not only the president of the United States, but also law enforcement officers, FBI agents and then join ISIS overseas if -- if they were still alive and fit for travel.

Phil Mudd and Mubin Shaikh are still back with me. I also want to bring in our legal analyst Danny Cevallos because technically, technically there's some pretty important aspects to these alleged crimes that you need to meet. You've got to get to a particular overt action, don't you, Danny? You can't just pull people in for talking, can you?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: When it comes to conspiracy law, it's long been the rule that it requires an overt act and an agreement. So some people need to agree on something and there must be some overt act in furtherance. And the courts have held, that can be as little as a phone call. So it's easy to expand that to an e-mail or, in the modern day, even a tweet if it meets the certain statutory requirements. And the material support statute, this was just an issue that was decided in just the last few years in a case called Holder v Humanitarian Law Project. And basically it upheld the constitutionality of this material support statute, even though people complained that maybe it violated the First Amendment because it appears to, in its language, very broadly criminalize any kind of including verbal material support. So the court had to really clarify, what is support? Is it services? Is it personnel? Is it providing your own body?

BANFIELD: Your body.

CEVALLOS: Right. Exactly. Is it buying a ticket --

BANFIELD: Your body as a fighter, willing to die. You're a weapon at that point, right? CEVALLOS: Exactly. Yes. So it's -- you know, although the court provided some clarification, we're still left wondering, what exactly, in the form of speech, will constitute material support?

BANFIELD: Yes.

CEVALLOS: And what is protected by the First Amendment?

BANFIELD: Let's just say, for talking purposes, that they didn't really care how many overt acts they were collecting for their docia (ph) to try these fellas. What they really wanted, Phil, was as much intelligence as they could get before they had to act, before they had to stop them. And isn't getting on a plane to a foreign country pretty much the bar where you say, get them?

MUDD: You can't let somebody get on a plane. What we used to talk about when I was at the bureau watching these cases every morning, you want to own the operation. You want to own their workplace, their car, their e-mail, their phone. You want to ensure that if they're going to do something some night, go shoot up a shopping mall, go make an attempt on the president's life, that you can't let that happen.

Now, Ashleigh, as soon as they talk about getting on an airplane, you know the intelligence collection process is coming to a close because that triggers a thought in your mind that is, if they get on that plane, you don't own the operation any more. You lose control.

BANFIELD: Mubin, I want you to weigh in on this other little element that's circulating out there that is so fascinating. And Phil and I were having some conversations about this before the program. And that was, this informant, this guy out there -- presumably guy -- maybe it's not -- who helped the FBI get what they needed on these people. How hard is it to get up close and personal with guys that are stupid enough to write something like, would it be OK if I just shot the president and then took a bullet myself, would that do? Could I endear myself to you that way?

SHAIKH: Well, you know, first of all, the public has a comical understanding of how national security investigations are conducted. The legal thresholds that we use, you know, demand that you have eyewitness evidence present then and there to be able to ascertain that in fact these things did in fact occur. So you're hearing a lot of criticisms that, oh, well, they're used an informant so it must be an FBI, you know, created plot. I mean that's -- it's silly. It's like a -- it's a sting operation.

It's no different than child sex predators. You know, a guy will be online and he's thinking -- he thinks he's talking to little Lucy, but it's actually Agent Lucy. And in this case, you know, he thought he was talking to a facilitator and an enabler and, you know, it's getting caught is what it is.

So to directly answer your question, it's very difficult, of course, to get somebody on the inside in that regard. You don't want to wait until -- you know let's say you hear that these three guys are up to no good, they're plotting this, they're plotting that, but they don't have any real means to do it. What do you do? Do you drop surveillance on them? And then what happens two weeks later when one of them gets a real job or robs somebody or conducts some fraudulent activity, gets the money and then goes? We're going to be hearing, oh, he was known to the authorities. Why didn't the authorities stop him? So this is one of the reasons why the government steps in and says, look, we're not going to wait. We're going to control this. We're going to make it a criminal offense -- bare bone criminal offense and procedure with the prosecution.

BANFIELD: Let -- let me bring Phil in on this because there's two ways you can look at the informant. Number one, when you read that dumb as paint e-mail that that guy sent to a website, an ISIS supported website, you think he's akin to the America's dumbest criminals that we see on cable shows all the time. He's the kind of guy you could sidle up next to at the Dunkin Donuts and potentially infiltrate within minutes. Is the harder part getting the guy to do the infiltration than actually infiltrating himself?

MUDD: Well, you've got to look at a couple different cases. For example, getting into the core of al Qaeda in Pakistan with a human informant, that's a problem.

BANFIELD: Yes.

MUDD: Getting next to somebody who is willing to tell a federal agent, yes, I was considering assassinating the president, may be a bit easier proposition. You want to look for people who have vulnerabilities. The vulnerability might be as simple as somebody saying, I want to get a plane ticket. I need some money. There's a friend I met a few months ago. Maybe I should talk to him about that. And that happens to be your informant. But as you said, Ashleigh, you've got to have somebody you can trust going into that situation because you don't want them going in talking and then coming back and replaying the conversation incorrectly to you.

BANFIELD: If you've got to have criminals, though, thank God they're as stupid as these guys potentially are.

MUDD: The dumb ones are helpful. The dumb ones are helpful.

BANFIELD: The dumb ones help a lot.

Phil, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

MUDD: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Mubin, as always, I love your insight. Thank you.

And Danny Cevallos, excellent information on just what they face legally to take these guys down, if, in fact, they're guilty.

All right, I got to move on. Smoking and growing dope. Marijuana. It's against federal law. But at midnight, it became legal in the land of the feds right there in the nation's capital. Right under Congress' steps. So how can that be? And, by the way, when we talk about steps, if you're in D.C. today,

watch where you walk because you could be walking into a mine field of law even though in some places it won't be. I'll clear that up in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)