Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Obama's Top National Security Advisers Testify Before Senate Committee; 47 Republicans Write Letter to Iran's Leadership

Aired March 11, 2015 - 15:30   ET

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


ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Major developments in the war on ISIS on the ground in Iraq, also, on the Capitol.

On Capitol Hill where President Obama's top national security advisers today spend about three hours before Senate committee trying to convince lawmakers to pass his use of force resolution against ISIS. The terror group suffered a loss today. Iraqi forces regained a military hospital in Tikrit as they pushed to win back Saddam Hussein's hometown from the terrorists. But ISIS is going on the offense as well, not Tikrit but Ramadi where witnesses there say it's the fiercest attack they've seen from ISIS with more than 100 mortar rounds fired. ISIS is reportedly also on the attack in Syria right now near Turkey's border.

Joining me is the co-author of this book, "ISIS inside the army of terror," Michael Weiss.

Michael, good to see you. Thanks so much. Of course in the hearing today the secretary of state John Kerry says ISIS is losing ground. Losing momentum basically saying what we're doing is working and we need more power to really take it to ISIS. Do you agree with them?

MICHAEL WEISS, AUTHOR, ISIS INSIDE THE ARMEY OF TERROR: They have been losing momentum, I mean, since early fall I would say of last year. The problem with Secretary Kerry's assessment is the battle of Tikrit which is now underway and I think the Iraqi side has now captured about 60 percent of that city. The U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with this battle. Nor frankly - I mean, it is true that there are some Iraqi military units involved in this, but this is frankly a Shia-militia-led effort, meaning Iranian proxy groups.

Iran is bombing locations around Tikrit using their own planes. (INAUDIBLE), the commander of the Quds force of the Revolutionary guard core, the major Iran's foreign spy master and operative is the ground general of this whole campaign.

CABRERA: I mean, how should we interpret that, his involvement, the Iranian involvement?

WEISS: It means that as ISIS continues to lose territory, Iran's strength and influence and hegemony if Iraq increases. And this is the other concern that --

CABRERA: Do you think have ulterior motive? WEISS: their motive is simple. They want to own Iraq. There was an

adviser to president Rouhani who came out the other day and Iran has an empire and Iraq is the capital of it. And that Iranian-Islam is the pure Islam.

Look, if Iran's goals are simple. They want to control a whole swath of the Middle East. They control five capitals right now. The U.S. as absented itself largely from this campaign and now it is starting to get jitters and quite nervous about, you know, if the cure might be as bad as the disease if not a little worse so.

CABRERA: And yet our Ben Wedeman on the ground is saying that Iraqis are actually welcoming Iranians in terms of that in their involvement?

WEISS: But I've also see video footage of (INAUDIBLE), a Shia militia group burning down the houses of members of a tribe that they consider complacent with is' takeover.

CABRERA: It is indeed a complicated situation there on the ground. And I want to just pivot a little because Sky News reporting today they spoke with the man who so-called defected from ISIS. And he came out and kind of leaked some information. And he tells sky news that there are mock beheadings happening all the time, really, within these ISIS camps among hostages and that that might be the reason that the hostages we seed in the videos seem to be so calm?

WEISS: Right. Yes. I mean --

CABRERA: What are your thoughts?

WEISS: Yes, I mean, it makes perfect sense. Look. These videos are very premeditated, very purpose of in terms of the propaganda value. Getting the victims, James Foley, the American hostages, Kenji Goto, Japanese, getting them to act the role requires a lot of thought and a lot of care and a lot of precision.

So what they've done is essentially desensitizes them beforehand. Don't worry. Don't worry. We're not going to kill you. This is all just for the sake of the cameras and then the final cut, if you like, is the actual snuffing, the actual execution.

I've also heard reports, look, from when they emulated Muadh al- Kasasbeh, the Jordanian pilot. There were reports coming out of Jordan that they have drugged him beforehand to get him to go along with this horrific crime of setting a main live in the cage.

ISIS is not - I mean, this is a serious organization. They know exactly the kind of value they're going to get from the media, from the news cycle. I've called them the subeditors of the western new cycle. They are looking to elicit an emotional response from the America, from the west, from the Middle East.

CABRERA: How can you not be emotional when you see something like these videos?

WEISS: Absolutely. CABRERA: It is a horrific video. Michael Weiss, thank you so much

for being with me.

WEISS: Sure.

CABRERA: Really do appreciate your expertise on this.

WEISS: No problem.

CABRERA: Another big story we're following. The situation at the University of Oklahoma involving the fraternity that was caught on video with the racist chant, is hate speech free speech? That question follows the expulsion now of two college students who were caught leading the racist video chant. It's ignited a strong debate. Opinions run high on both sides of the free speech issue.

Parker Rice, as seen here, railing fraternity brothers and others. He was kicked out of the University of Oklahoma by the president just yesterday. The president David Borne said he expelled Rice and another student identified by campus newspaper there, 'the Oklahoma Daily," as Levi Pettit. He says he expelled these two for leading the racist and exclusionary chant, which has create a hostile educational environment to others. That's a quote.

Now, is he on firm legal ground? Let me turn to criminally defense attorney and CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos. Also with us, professor Eugene Volokh from the UCLA school of law.

Danny, let me start with you. What grounds, on what grounds can the university expel a student for something he said?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well first, it was very likely the students were going to be expelled. But whether or not that's ultimately constitutional will be another issue.

Since in the past decade or so, universities have been under tremendous pressure from the U.S. department of education through a series of dear colleague letters demanding that they police things like harassment, sexual assault, bullying. And as a result, universities are under tremendous pressure. They could lose their federal funding if OCR feels like they're not doing enough.

So what is enough? So university, that means, holding these tribunals where students are summarily, in this case, they have apparently been summarily expelled. I don't know what kind of due process or any process they've been given, but that's exactly the problem. These universities are obligated to have arrived zero due process. And in some instances use a burden of proof like the preponderance of evidence which is something that we reject for our doubt criminals. It seems odd that we're doing that with our students.

But the bottom line, many people have said that hey, these students signed on to go to this university. They somehow agreed to a student code of conduct. That is true. However, any university school code of conduct must ultimately be, if it's a public university, it must pass constitutional muster. And that, of course, is where the constitutional discussion begins.

CABRERA: And Eugene, I want you to pick up from there, because not only are you a league expert, but you are also part of a university. And a lot of people want to know, can a school expel a student for saying the "n" word, for racial speech?

EUGENE VOLOKH, PROFESSOR, FROM THE UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW: No. You asked earlier is had hate speech or free speech? Well, there is no hate speech exception to the first amendment. Speeches protect in regardless of the viewpoint that have expresses. And that includes evil speech, racist speech, we're hearing earlier on about the atrocities that ISIS has perpetrated. That's protected to advocacy of communist revolution is protected, all of that speech is protected.

To be sure there are exceptions to protection, threats, for example. If somebody threaten as particular person with violence, that's unprotected. So there are some exceptions, but no exception for racially offensive speech.

CABRERA: So in terms of the threat to help us understand more, I mean, there's one thing in the video that we pointed out which is the n word is used. But there is also part of that video where these students are talking about lynching African-Americans. Is that considered a threat? So would that fall under harassment bullying, some legal grounds to expel a student?

VOLOKH: Yes, I think harassment and bullying is largely beside the point. It, if you go up to somebody and threaten him with violence, or post something saying, we will kill this particular person, that would indeed be a punishable threat.

On the other hand if what you're doing is just chatting with your friends, whether seriously or in a pretty, I think, vile attempt of humor, but in any event, chatting with your friends in a situation where you have no expectation that anybody else will hear of it, that's not a threat. It is offensive speech but it is not a threat.

Let me give an example. The charter of Hamas, the organization that runs the Gaza Strip, calls for basically war against Jews and killing of Jews. Not just Israelis but Jews. If somebody were to come up to me, I'm Jewish, and say I will kill you because you're a Jew, that's a punishable threat. But if somebody says, you know, I support the charter talking to friends, I support the Hamas charter and, you know, I do think at some point there will be a war with Jews and we're going to kill the Jews, that's not a threat because he's communicating not to the person being threatened but just to a friend or fellow group member and that is constitutionally protected expression. Awful expression but the first amendment protects bad speeches well as good speech.

CABRERA: All right, Eugene Volokh, Danny Cevallos, wish we have more time. But thank you both of you for your expertise and insight there.

Can the reputation of those two college students now expelled ever be repaired, especially when that video will live online forever. We're going to talk about that, next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: One of the so-called ringleaders of that racist fraternity chants at the Oklahoma -- University of Oklahoma is apologizing now. Parker Rice issued his apology saying it was more important that he acknowledge what he did and didn't do and he says quote "for me, this is a devastating lesson. And I am seeking guidance on how I can learn from this, make sure it never happens again. My goal for the long term is to be a man with the heart and courage to reject racism whenever I see or experience it in the future."

Here with me now is branding and social media expert Peter Shankman. He is also an author of "Zombie Loyalists using great service to create Rabid Fans."

All right, Peter, we've got these two kids who have been expelled now. This video is online. Essentially it's out there forever.

PETER SHANKMAN, AUTHOR, ZOMBIE LOYALISTS: Yes.

CABRERA: Will they and their image forever be scarred?

SHANKMAN: Well, it certainly doesn't help them, you know. The world has a very short memory and someone will do something stupider, soon or not. But right now, they're first priority after school is looking for jobs. And any employer is going to Google any potential candidate. And I guaranty you, this is the first that will come up under their names. They have the opportunity to change they are name and it wouldn't surprise me if they did that, you know. And it's very, very difficult to escape the shadow of Google when you do something like this. And it's still amazing to me that 10, 15 years after the (INAUDIBLE) of social media, we still have to have reminders lessons on a regular basis that anything do you will be recorded and it will found out.

CABRERA: You know, let me bring up a couple other examples, because it just seems like recently we're seeing more and more of these types of situations. I mean, with even more high-profile people, Paula Deen.

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Yes, a couple examples. I mean, have they been able to bounce back after their incidents?

SHANKMAN: Justine Sacco ended up getting job. She is working. She is still in the PR industry. It is not the high profile. She is the head of (INAUDIBLE), global public relations. Not anymore. It hurt her. And it definitely takes a financial, it takes a physical or health toll. I mean, just in this case, can you imagine landing and turning or your bone and it essentially melts in your hands with 50 million tweets. You are the top trending topic on twitter.

These guys are going to have a hard road in front of them. And it was a stupid move on their part, no question about it. And it is going to hurt for quite some time. CABRERA: How would you rate University of Oklahoma's response in

terms of the PR stance?

SHANKMAN: My God. One of the best crisis management responses that have seen in years. You know, that on par with what the NBA did when they the problem with the team owner, you know, who is saying racist things. I mean, they did.

And I think it's because he's a former governor. He doesn't know how to handle crisis. He moved in, he took a position, he stated it. And within the 24 hours, the dorm was made dismantled, the house was being dismantled, very smart move distancing themselves from the fraternity. The fraternity itself distanced themselves from the chapter.

CABRERA: And we know of - recruit them who is de-committed from going to the university. I mean, they could have --

(CROSSTALK)

SHANKMAN: It's going to hurt them, you know. It's not so much the university. I think that's the only recruit who is going to de- commit. I don't think you are going to see this affect the university long term and it was a couple students. It will affect the fraternity and it will certainly affect the students.

And again, you know, I teach a class at NYU on this. And I tell the kids all the time, guys, you know, be careful. Anything you do will be there for the rest of your lives.

CABRERA: All right, let that be a lesson to our viewers or good reminder at the very least.

Peter Shankman, thank you so much for coming on.

Up next, Democrats are taking Republicans to task for writing that letter to Iran, saying they undermined the president, but it's not just Republicans. Democrats have done some very similar things in the past. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: Ever heard of the Logan act? This is a 216-year-old law signed by President John Adams and now some are claiming that nearly half of the Senate willfully violated it.

Forty-six Republicans joined freshman senator Tom Cotton in writing to Iran's leaders, asserting that any nuclear deal would need support from Congress and the next president could override it.

But a Logan act specifically forbids any American without permission from influencing quote "dissents or controversy involving the U.S. and a foreign government." So this isn't the first time someone in Congress has been accused of breaking this law.

In fact, the second Bush administration slammed Nancy Pelosi, former house speaker, after she met with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad on a trip to Syria back in 2007. Vice president Dick Cheney's reaction was pretty straightforward then and I quote "the president is the one who conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the house," end quote.

Politico's Michael Crowley wrote about this fight. And Michael, the White House says the GOP is trying to sandbag the president here. But you write, this sort of outrageous behavior really isn't that unprecedented.

MICHAEL CROWLEY, POLITICO: Yes. I mean, I just want to be clear that there's very little if any precedent for the way this letter was done, kind of writing directly to a foreign government and undermining the president, you know, with this message direct to the foreign government. That's unusual.

What my story pointed out was that there is a rich history of presidents angrily charging that the Congress in all kinds of ways has exceeded its authorities in trying to undermine his foreign policy and national security making, sometimes claiming it was unconstitutional. There may be no real precedent for this letter we have seen. But there is a rich history of this and the Pelosi trip is one example. House speaker Jim Wright, a Democrat, met with the president of Nicaragua much to the consternation of the Reagan administration. And even at that time there was talk of the Logan act.

Bill Clinton was very upset by some things the Republican Congress did. So, you know, generally speaking, this is a long-running power struggle, but that particular letter may be in a category of its own.

CABRERA: When you talk about the Logan act, we kind of really summarized it briefly as we introduced this segment. Do you think it needs to be changed if it appears that politicians can dodge this law with impunity?

CROWLEY: Well, I suppose. I mean, I think the practical reality is, you know, a member of Congress just isn't going to be prosecuted. You're not going to see it happen. It might be good to clarify the law. There might be people who think that, you know, members of Congress should be able to communicate in this way.

But, you know, as long as it's practically not going to result in any kind of prosecution, I think if there's this tacit understanding that private citizens can't be going, you know, maybe ultra-wealthy businessmen with all kinds of connections can't be going to try to negotiate side deals./ you know, I don't know that the law actually needs to be updated because you won't see any real action on it.

CABRERA: The secretary of state John Kerry, he tangled with Senator Marco Rubio earlier today. Let's listen to this and we will talk on the backside.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: In essence, the way we proceeded with our negotiations in Iran have impacted our trust level with these critical allies in this coalition.

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Senator, that actually is flat wrong also, flat wrong.

RUBIO: They said so publicly.

KERRY: It's flat wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Do you think foreign policy is just hopelessly politicized now? I mean, is this kind of fighting inevitable between the White House and the opposition, the opposite party?

CROWLEY: Yes. We are seeing this across the board. I mean, we really have kind of two parallel visions of government and the country running and there's almost no overlap between them. There is so much hostility, so little comity, COMITY, although often comedy of the other kind.

And you know, as one historian mentioned -- said to me when I did a story this week, one thing that sets that letter apart from some of the other precedents we talked about is not that a Congress was challenging a president's foreign policy, but just the kind of open hostility you saw in that letter, sort of the contempt for the president. There was sort of the kind of a sneering tone. I think that is probably what really set Democrats off.

But absolutely, we just have a Republican Congress and Democrat White House that have virtually no common ground and we are going to continue to see, you know, outrage on both sides as each side gets increasingly hostile and offended by the other.

CABRERA: How does this make America look to the rest of the world?

CROWLEY: Well, you know, I think it's problematic. You can choose who you want to blame for it. But I do think that when the country is so internally divided, it does make foreign countries unsure about what we're going to do. It's hard for them to read what direction we are going to go in, if we make an agreement with Iran is it going to stick.

You know, I also know that inside the administration, there has been concern about some of these domestic fights having an international component. For instance, you know, the inability to pass a budget, this brinksmanship we have seen with the budget and the debt limit, making other countries doubt that our system fundamentally works, that our economy is fundamentally stable and reliable. The Chinese have had a good laugh at our expense when we have some of these fights.

And you know, one official put it to me, we are trying to convince the world that our system is the best system particularly as China grows we may be losing that argument.

CABRERA: All right, Michael Crowley, thank you so much for joining me.