Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Possible Breakthrough in Iran Nuclear Deal. The Crash of Germanwings Flight 9525; Two ISIS-Inspired Women Arrested. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired April 03, 2015 - 10:00   ET

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

[10:00:22] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. I'm Don Lemon. Carol is off today. Thank you so much for joining us on this Friday. A lot of breaking news, a lot of news happening today.

First up, out of the Middle East, America angers its closest ally -- excuse me -- in the region and maybe charts a new relationship with its greatest enemy.

I want to take a live look at this picture now. This is from Tehran. You're looking at this because just in a short time the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, about to deliver a national address. It's on a breakthrough in the U.S.-led nuclear talks with Iran.

Again, we're awaiting a live press conference supposed to happen any time now. It's scheduled to happen right now at the top of the hour. We're going to carry it for you live.

And then just moments ago we heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, condemning that framework of a deal. He says, "The Cabinet is united in strongly opposing the proposed deal. This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the state of Israel."

All right. So let's get some perspective on all of this now as we wait for the Iranian president. Phil Black covering President Rouhani's address for us.

Phil, good afternoon to you. What do you -- what do you think we're going to hear?

PHIL BLACK, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Don, it will be interesting. It would seem if you were to make a guess of it, that -- and what we would be looking for are words of support, words that indicate, language that indicate that the Iranian president supports this framework agreement, which has been trashed out.

And it would seem likely to believe that that is going to be the case because you would have to think that the country's foreign minister would not have signed up, although he hasn't signed it officially, would not have agreed, walked away saying that this framework agreement has been reached, if he did not have the support of his superiors within the country. But it is still important to hear this from the president, even though

keeping in mind that the president is not the ultimate authority, it still comes down again to the supreme leader of Iran and just what he believes. And it is more likely that these words coming from the president will be an even better indication of what the supreme leader himself thinks.

So after 24 hours in which much of the international community has responded very positively to this arrangement, they will be looking to see just what sort of language Iran's president uses when discussing to what extent he, the Iranian leadership, is pleased with this agreement. And there's going to be one key sticking point that we should be listening out for, and that is the issue of sanctions relief.

Because already in the time since this agreement has been declared, if you like, this framework agreement has been declared, we've heard some different views and some strikingly different language about what is perceived to be necessary in terms of the time frame, the conditions for relieving those crippling economic sanctions, for lifting them from Iran. It would seem that Iran is very much positioning itself pushing for immediate total sanctions relief once a detailed agreement, that's the final detailed agreement, is negotiated.

Remember, that's supposed to happen by the end of June. It would seem that Iran's negotiating partners are positioning themselves more in favor perhaps of a staggered relief of sanctions as Iran gradually complies with whatever the agreement dictates it must do so or perhaps even waiting until -- waiting for total compliance, a situation where Iran meets every condition of the negotiated agreement and only then would all sanctions be lifted simultaneously.

That's going to be a very difficult issue as this framework agree and as all the countries involve move forward in order to try and determine precisely that final version -- Don.

LEMON: All right. Phil Black, thank you very much.

And as you can see, again, we're monitoring the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani giving a speech, reacting to the deal that was made, or a tentative deal that was made by world leaders just today. Again, and it has to do with -- they've agreed to make at least reduce their stockpile of enriched uranium and also to reduce approximately two- thirds of its installed centrifuges. Also there will be strict oversight by monitoring governments and -- of its nuclear plants.

Again, we'll keep an eye on the Iranian president.

Phil Black mentioned the framework, the framework of a plan is really cause for celebration for some. Look.

You can see there some Iranians are dancing in the streets, euphoric over the prospect that the U.S. and European Union will lift those crippling sanctions. But is there also cause to celebrate at the White House as President Obama enters toward achieving a central goal of his second term? CNN's Sunlen Serfaty at the White House for us.

What's the reaction, Sunlen?

[10:05:19] SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, this was a big goal as you said, but it also remains a big risk for President Obama. He really reached out and he really took personal ownership of this issue. Was on the phone at midnight, the night that these talks went down two nights ago from the residence of the White House talking with his National Security team, getting an update.

He invested a lot into this and you'll recall that back in 2008 when he was running for president as a senator, he received some criticism then of saying that he would not only talk to friends of the United States, to adversaries of the United States including Iran. And this is something that we've heard from President Obama since those days as senator into his days at the White House. We heard this in his first inaugural address after becoming president and it's something that he made note of yesterday in the Rose Garden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today the United States, together with our allies and partners, has reached an historic understanding with Iran, which if fully implemented will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: If this final deal ends up happening and if it sticks, and those are two big ifs here, this will go a long way for President Obama's legacy, giving him validation of that way of governing but the first issue, Don, that President Obama and the White House team has is they have a big sale to make on Capitol Hill -- Don.

LEMON: Yes. It's not going to be easy. What are the obstacles in Congress, Sunlen?

SERFATY: Well, there has been a pushback already of course from Republicans, but the White House is particularly making note of what Senate Democrats are saying here. There is a bill that's in the works from Senate Republican Bob Corker that would basically give Congress an up-or-down vote on any final deal. And they are close to a veto proof majority, those on the Hill think.

Now the White House is going to do a full court press here, working the phones. President Obama has been on the phone in the last day reaching out to members of Congress, trying to make sure that they not only understand the details of this deal but in essence don't sign on to it -- Don.

LEMON: Sunlen Serfaty at the White House. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

The plan also has plenty of critics in the U.S. from both parties but howling the loudest and most often among the first, some of the Republicans likely to make a presidential bid. Tick off a handful for you. Jeb Bush calls it flawed, while Marco Rubio dismisses the Obama efforts as farcical. Rick Perry, he's holding back just a little bit saying he's wary. Ted Cruz calls it a bad idea, a bad deal, and Lindsey Graham says the consequences of a bad deal would be unimaginable.

The presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was also quick to weigh in on this, saying, "There is much to do and much more to say in the months ahead but for now diplomacy deserves a chance to succeed."

Still to come, the chilling new details from the second black box found in the alps. What we know about the last few minutes on board. We'll tell you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:11:45] LEMON: Disturbing new information about the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525. We now know that Andreas Lubitz, the co- pilot, repeatedly and deliberately sped up the plane as it slammed into the French Alps. The new information coming from French officials who had performed what they are calling initial tests on the recently recovered flight data recorder.

Will Ripley following the story for us from Dusseldorf.

What else do we know, Will?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we know is we continue to paint a picture, Don, of a really horrifies descent for this aircraft and the 149 people who were trapped in back as Andreas Lubitz manually changed the autopilot settings, moving this plane closer and closer toward the French Alps. He was at 38,000 feet and the data recorder shows that he'd adjusted the autopilot and he engaged it to 100 feet. So the plane started descending but apparently it wasn't going fast enough for Lubitz because he increased the speed and that happened several times.

And we know from the cockpit voice recorder passengers from the back were screaming because there were alarms that was sounding in the cockpit. They knew that the acceleration rate was not safe, the captain was trying to break back into the cockpit, and yet Andreas Lubitz kept breathing normally and its believed, Don, that he was alive and conscious up until the very last moment of impact, looking out through the cockpit, at the terrain approaching, never responding to the chaos behind him but just breathing normally as he brought that plane and all of those innocent people at 420 miles an hour into that mountain range -- Don.

LEMON: Baffling. Baffling. Investigators removed a whole lot of things from his apartment, from his family's home. What do we know about the searches that he did on his computer?

RIPLEY: They were looking for evidence of some sort of a motive here. They don't have evidence of a motive but what they do have, Don, is a tablet that they recovered from his apartment and the tablet -- its Internet search history shows that in the week leading up to this crash. In fact even the day before, Andreas Lubitz was searching the Internet for methods to commit suicide. He was also searching for information about cockpit door security measures.

That's why an official on the ground here says this is clearly a case of premeditated murder because he wanted to kill himself and he wanted to lock himself in the cockpit of an aircraft. But what they don't have is any clue as to why he would do this. They know he had deteriorating psychological health. He had seen as many as six doctors trying to get treatment. He was having problems with his girlfriend, he was very afraid of losing his pilot license.

But he didn't leave any note. No indication of why, if he wanted to do harm to himself did he feel the need to bring along with him all of those innocent people on the plane. And we may never know that answer, Don, but they're certainly still searching as much as they can to try to -- to try to find out.

LEMON: I mean, Will, the more you hear, the more baffling and just unbelievable it becomes. Thank you, Will Ripley, appreciate that.

Well, my next guests -- one of them says that he wants to know whether Lubitz was trying to hide what he was really doing, trying to play the hero here.

I want to bring in CNN's safety analyst and former FAA accident investigator David Soucie, and CNN aviation and regulation correspondent Rene Marsh.

Good morning to both of you.

David, what do you mean hide what he was doing?

[10:15:09] DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Well, you know, with this new report here, I'm not sure that I can still take that stance. What originally it said that he had taken movements to change the speed, I was thinking at that time that he had made those movements to decrease the speed, thereby eliminating any warning that would go back to the air carrier. But with this report saying that he was increasing the speed, I think it's very clear now that he was conscious, he was intentful, that he was planning to kill all those people on board.

LEMON: I just -- I can't -- the more I hear, as I just said after Will's report, David, the more baffling it becomes.

SOUCIE: It's just unconscionable. It really is. And to break the sanctity of this whole breed of pilots that have earned the trust of everyone and then to break this -- break it the way that he has is just tragic. It really is tragic.

LEMON: Rene, let's talk about some possible preventative measures, perhaps enhanced anti-crash technology, something like that, may have helped in this particular situation?

RENE MARSH, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: In theory, Don, that is quite possible. Right now what the situation is as we know is that if the rate of descent is going too fast, too rapidly, essentially the plane going down too fast, and you have those alarms going off. But in this case we saw that there was no action. The pilot -- the co-pilot did not take any action to correct that path.

There was this technology we know that Airbus, the manufacturer of the crashed plane as well as Honeywell, the tech company, they were working together to develop software that would essentially allow the computers in the plane to take over control of the aircraft if, for whatever reason, a pilot didn't respond to these alarms that were going off, but that project got scrapped, this technology does not exist in aircrafts at any point.

Many pilots don't like the idea because they say an aircraft should never be taken out of the control of a pilot, it raises so many other safety issues. But it is worth knowing some people strongly believe and I've spoken to several others who say if this sort of technology was in an aircraft, perhaps the outcome of a crash like Flight 9525 would have ended differently.

LEMON: And David, remember we had this conversation the other night on my show here on CNN about the possibility of a hacking threat, and as Rene said, taking really the controls of a plane out of the pilot, people don't like that. But it has been discussed since 9/11. Why aren't we seeing it?

SOUCIE: Well, there are just too many vulnerabilities in the technology still today. The possibility of interrupting that or hacking into it between the control and the computer. The other thing, too, is that what we're talking about here is the reliability of the pilots flying the airplane and the possibility of this happening, this crazy maneuver happening, and intentful change versus to allow the computer to take over and risk the computer having those issues as well.

Remember, there are seven different computers in this aircraft. And that's -- there's a reason for that and that's to back up each other and to constantly check each other to see if they're making the right decision. So these are the vulnerabilities. When we worked with the Boeing uninterruptible autopilot years ago which were very similar to this technology of saying we want to be able to hand this off to the aircraft.

The technology, I think it does need to get there, or will get there, I'm not sure how long it will take. It may not be in our lifetimes before we see it but it should be done but the technology is just not there to protect from vulnerabilities.

LEMON: Certainly is interesting.

David, Rene, appreciate both of you. Thank you so much.

Still to come, obsessed with Osama bin Laden and pressure cooker bombs? Just some of the investigation -- the information that's coming from this investigation. A 29-page complaint against two accused homegrown terrorists.

We'll tell you about their alleged plot and their intended targets next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:22:36] LEMON: Taste the truth through fists and slit throats. Those are the chilling words that federal investigators say helped prove their case against two New York women allegedly planning a string of ISIS inspired attacks.

Among the allegations, listen to this, former roommates purchased ingredients to make an explosive like the one used at the Boston marathon. Officials say the pair repeatedly expressed support for violent jihad. Even more troubling according to court documents, one of the suspects once asked, "Why can't we be some real bad bitches?" Answer, because you end up in jail in a federal investigation. Adding that, she was -- the pair to be referred to as Citizens of the Islamic State, they wanted.

CNN national correspondent Jason Carroll has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They are U.S. citizens who live in Queens, New York. The two women identified in a federal criminal complaint as 28-year-old Noelle Velentzas and 31- year-old Asia Siddiqui. Authorities say they are homegrown would-be terrorists, planning to detonate a bomb in the United States.

In the 29-page complaint, the U.S. attorney details how the women allegedly expressed their support for, quote, "violent jihad." Prosecutors say the women researched and acquired materials needed to make various types of bombs, including fertilizer, a pressure cooker device and multiple propane tanks which authorities say Siddiqui kept in her apartment building.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My client will enter a plea of not guilty. Even when there's an indictment. And she and I will address everything in the courtroom where it belongs.

CARROLL: Authorities say the suspects were not after civilians but instead the police and military, even taking inspiration from the killing of funeral of slain police officer, Rafael Ramos, believing a crowded police funeral would be an easy target.

They say Velentzas considered Osama bin Laden her mentor and praised the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and she was obsessed with pressure cookers since the Boston marathon attack according to an undercover officer.

Prosecutors say Siddiqui's ambitions were just as strong, that she had repeated contacts with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and that she even wrote a poem which appeared in a jihadi magazine. In it line such as, "No excuses, sit back, and wait for the sky's rain martyrdom and taste the truth through fists and slit throats."

[10:25:07] The pair had been on the radar of investigators since at least May 2013 and according to a law enforcement official close to the case, the women came to the attention of investigators through another terrorism investigation. People in Velentzas' neighborhood tell us she is married with a young daughter. They say she sometimes argued with her husband but there was nothing to indicate she had jihadist leaning.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's a very friendly woman and I would never even expect that at all. They're very lovely people. I know I saw the FBI this morning but I didn't know exactly what they're being arrested to.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But that is so crazy.

CARROLL: Jason Carroll, CNN, Brooklyn, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON: She's right, that is so crazy.

Let's talk now with two people familiar with cases like this one. Former assistant director of the FBI, Bill Gavin, is with us. Also joining us now is Robert McFadden, he's a former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence at NCIS.

We appreciate both of you. Officials say one of these suspects wrote a poem for al Qaeda magazine, the magazine inspired that was back in 2009.

So, Bill, to you first, why do you think, it took so long to zero in on these two suspects?

BILL GAVIN, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI: Well, it's not the easiest thing in the whole world. The United States and the intelligence services and the law enforcement services can't cover everything that everybody is doing at the same time. That's unfortunate. The fortunate part is that we did somehow get these people up on the grid through informants or through the context they made overseas and were able to stop them. That's the important thing.

It's another classic case, Don, of a horrible set of circumstances where two United States citizens plotting against citizens of the United States to kill, wound and mutilate them, yet living a relatively sedentary life in their neighborhoods. It's just horrible.

LEMON: Yes. You know, during the investigation at one point -- at what point do authorities decide whether the line has been crossed? Because -- and there's a real threat, because they had been under surveillance for quite some time.

ROBERT MCFADDEN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, NCIS: Yes. Typically in a case like this, there's a tip from the public. Once that information is validated and vetted, it reaches the threshold or preliminary investigation, and then if there's more -- more information that predicates introducing source and informant, or in this case an undercover operative or officer to go against the targets.

LEMON: So why do you think at this point do you think that maybe the investigation was going to be uncovered somehow? Why do you think it was at this very moment?

MCFADDEN: Yes, absolutely. What you have here, whether it's the NYPD or the Joint Terrorism Task Force, or both, they have an excellent system and calibrating and once something reaches the threshold where they're going to take constructive acts toward violence, typically that's when in conjunction with the U.S. attorney's office the decision is made to make the arrest.

LEMON: You know, we have seen the young women go off aboard, they go off to fight for ISIS. They don't sound like they had plans to travel overseas. Instead they wanted to do attacks here. They were looking at police officers' -- you know, at the funerals of two police officers last year, zeroing in on undercover officers as well.

So what gives here? Why not go overseas for ISIS? What's -- what's the focus over here?

MCFADDEN: Sometimes it's just as simple as the individual just doesn't have the capability to get overseas, so you have -- although data is still really thin because this is such a relatively new phenomenon in the era that we're in. Scientific studies are really just getting underway. But the data we do have you see push and pull factors. The biggest pull factor we see consistently are the battle fields, whether it's Syria, Iraq or other places.

The push factor, though, typically it's a personal face-to-face relationship, even more so than social media. So then once the individual latches on to those ideas, then you have different swirling motivations and it may be the case where they would like to get to a place like Syria but just can't get there.

LEMON: Bill, same question to you. Why not overseas?

GAVIN: I don't think they go overseas simply because they were much more advantageous to commit their acts here. You know, many times we've had individuals going overseas to be trained to come back to the United States to commit their acts. These people are already here, they've downloaded the cookbook, they have purchased materials to make a bomb.

It's advantageous for them to be right on site and losing less of a chance of getting caught going across borders and whatnot. So it works both ways to go over there and be trained yet by the same token to have U.S. citizens here in the United States willing to do these kinds of things.

LEMON: Hey, I'm up against the clock, but I want both of you to weigh on this quickly. Do you think that -- you know, getting a lot of the information online, do you think that there's some real information to be gotten here from investigators over these sort of lone wolves?

First to you, Bill. [10:30:01] GAVIN: I think that probably they have radicalized online

and then they decided to become lone wolf kind of individuals.