Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

U.S. Drone Strike Inadvertently Kills Two Hostages, Including an American; Former CIA director David Petraeus Sentenced for Leaking Classified Documents to Former Lover; Another Major Rally Getting Underway in Baltimore City Hall. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired April 23, 2015 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:31:26] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN: Jim Sciutto, we're here. We're live at city hall. I'm looking. There seems to be an organized gathering to my right. So I'm going to wander over there that way. In the meantime, let me send it back to you in Washington.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Let's hope it stays calm there. It's good to have you there watching.

Back to our other breaking news here, a U.S. drone strike inadvertently killing two hostage, including an American. Next we're going to talk about the drone program as a whole, who signs off, the clear risks involved.

Plus, breaking news. Former CIA director David Petraeus has now been sentenced for leaking classified documents to his former lover. We'll bring that story to you right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:36:17] SCIUTTO: Welcome back. I'm Jim Sciutto live in Washington. We have more breaking news, this time out of charlotte, North Carolina. That's where the former CIA chief David Petraeus has just been sentenced for leaking classified documents to his former lover who was writing a biography about him.

I want to bring in CNN justice correspondent Pamela Brown right now.

Pamela, will he do any time in prison for this? What is the sentence?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: No prison time, Jim, but we have learned that the judge upped the punishment here. The government had originally suggested that he face two years' probation and a $40,000 fine. But today the judge in that Charlotte courtroom upped the fine to $100,000, saying that reflects the seriousness of the offense of the removal and retention of classified information.

Now, both the government and the defense argued today that he shouldn't face jail time because none of that information, that classified information was published or made public. But as you know, Jim, there has been a lot of criticism against the justice department for giving Petraeus special treatment, saying that he should have faced more charges, including lying to investigators, that the punishment should have been harsher. But we know today he pleaded guilty to that misdemeanor charge, and he spoke in court today and said that he apologized for the pain my actions have caused. Also, there were letters read in court today from people who had worked with him, who supported him and said he was a great role model. In response to that, he said, I'm honored and humbled by their words. And we know that we're expecting a competent from the retired four- star general any moment now right outside of that courthouse in Charlotte, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this question, Pamela. And I know these are not necessarily easy ones. But a lower ranking person in the military or the CIA, if they'd done the same, would they have likely faced jail time?

BROWN: Well, what we know is that there have been other situations with lower ranking officials who have been charged with similar offenses who are in jail. There's a contractor who is serving a little over a year in jail for releasing classified information to a reporter. And in fact, his attorney wrote the justice department and said it was a double standard essentially that his client was put in jail for that but Petraeus is basically not having to face any jail time under this plea agreement that he reached with the government. But again, the defense and the government actually argued today that none of this classified information was published. Therefore, probation was appropriate.

But I think what we saw from the judge here was an acknowledgment, Jim, that the punishment was too light and that's likely why the judge upped the fee that he must pay to $100,000 --Jim.

SCIUTTO: Well, it's a remarkable fall. The former chief of the CIA.

Pamela Brawn, thanks for joining us.

Back now to our other big story today. Today's announcement three Americans, one hostage and two Al-Qaeda operatives, were inadvertently killed by U.S. drone strikes in and around the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. That reigniting debate over the whole U.S. drone program. It has been a lightning rod for controversy for some time from the use of unmanned devices a s a counterterrorism tool to the way the program is run and who's in-charge.

With me now, CNN political analyst and "Bloomberg View" columnist Josh Rogan and CNN presidential historian and Rice University, American history professor Douglas Brinkley.

I wonder if I could start with you, Josh. We just had senator McCain on there, Dana Bash asked him should the program as a whole be rethought here. I mean, you really have a perfect storm of mistakes in this case. Bad intelligence in effect not only killing an American hostage, and Italian hostage, but killing two American terror suspects or members of Al-Qaeda without running the legal traps necessary to kill an American. I mean, this is a real intelligence failure here.

In light of all the other questions about this program, civilian casualties on the ground, reaction of host nations, do you see this as a watershed event for the U.S. drone program? [15:40:26] JOSH ROGAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Thanks, Jim.

Absolutely, yes, this is a watershed event. I've been speaking with counterterrorism officials and administration officials all day who worked on this program and who actually worked on the search for Warren Weinstein. And they all basically said the same thing. They said under the rules that were established, eventually given enough time, mistakes like this were bound to happen. And this comes at the end of a year's long debate inside the diplomatic and intelligence community about what these rules should be, especially when it comes to a place like North Waziristan in Pakistan where these counterterrorism operations are assumed to have taken place because that's a place where we don't have intelligence on the ground. The Pakistani army can't get there. U.S. intelligence officials are sparse on the ground. So we're relying on second-hand information, signals intelligence, satellites, drones, and that's an imperfect system.

And eventually, given that lack of visibility, something like this was going to happen. So that mandates a discussion, both inside the government and inside the Congress and amongst used in the public, about how to fix that.

SCIUTTO: No question. And listen, Afghanistan-Pakistan is certainly not the only place where you have intelligence weakness. You've just pulled out a lot of resources from Yemen where you have AQAP. In fact, there were two drone strikes earlier this week, on Monday and Wednesday. It's long been a black hole inside Syria, where you have is.

Douglas Brinkley, when we look at the president here, this is a president who, you know, enormously ratcheted up the drone program, the number of strikes compared to the George W. Bush administration markedly different, marked increase. You have this mistake. You certainly had the success of a risky counter terror operation in killing Osama bin Laden, but you've had failed rescue attempts for American hostages of ISIS inside Syria. You had an operation in Yemen attempting to rescue hostage there where the hostage was killed by his captors during the fire fight. Now you have this. How does this affect the president's legacy in light of his rule growing this program?

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, Barack Obama will always be associated with the drone program. It really came of age as a technology during his presidency. We don't want to lose sight of the fact that the drones are really helping defeat Al-Qaeda. We hit the right compound. It was a terrible tragedy that's occurred here. And you know, we have to think clearly of Warren Weinstein as an American hero. Hopefully we'll be able to -- represents really U.S. aid workers all over the world who are trying to fight for democracy and doing humanitarian good.

But the president is going to have to get a report and do some retooling here. We don't want a repeat of this. But I think the enemy here is Al-Qaeda. We have to be careful not to over beat up on CIA or President Obama or our armed forces because of an event like this. It's tough to ferret out terrorists. We do the best we can. Mistakes at war are going to happen, and this is one of them.

SCIUTTO: No question, but let's be fair here because you have cost- benefit analysis with any of this. This is something that goes back to Bush administration. Donald Rumsfeld asked this question. Are we killing them faster than we're creating them? And the thing about the drone program in countries like this, places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, you kill, whether they be fighters or suspected fighters or civilians in there. Often times that leads others to join these extremist groups. It doesn't mean you take away the tool, but you have to factor that, do you not, into the analysis as to whether it's worth it overall. I mean, Josh, is that part of the debate here in Washington?

ROGAN: Well, it was part of the debate. And this is really interesting because especially when it comes to Pakistan, there was a huge fight between the state department and the embassy in Islamabad and the CIA over many years over this very question. There were many people inside the U.S. government who believed that the drone strikes were doing more harm than good, hurting our relationship with the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people, and that the intelligence just wasn't there. A lot of those concerns are born out in this tragedy.

I mean, you saw White House spokesman Josh Earnest say today that the intelligence community had a high confidence that there were no civilians in the area. And that was obviously wrong. The problem was that the president's view on this is well known inside the administration. Everybody eventually had to come around to it. This is a president who has shunned boots on the ground. He's shunned getting U.S. personnel involved in these conflicts, so he's relied on these drones and on these technologies and that his calls and benefits. In the end, that debate has always come out on the president's side because the president is ultimately in charge.

So as long as Barack Obama is in power, that policy is not likely to change. And this will become now a more robust debate as we head into 2016.

[15:45:14] SCIUTTO: Doug, just a quick thought before we have to go. Is it worth it overall in your view?

BRINKLEY: Absolutely. The one thing you'll find bipartisan support on is the drones program. You had John McCain saying we have to fine- tune it, but it's got to stay. And I mean, to stay and you have Barack Obama saying the same thing.

The option of putting troops on the ground we can't do and we have to decimate Al-Qaeda. We have to fight the war on terror. This is the best that we have. Let's hope we can get better intelligence and that the drones can get more sophisticated in what they do so we don't kill innocent civilians in places like Pakistan either.

ROGAN: I would just say here that the drone policy has to be part of a more robust strategy to countering Al-Qaeda. We can't just do drones. We have to have an engagement on the ideological level, on the diplomatic level to solve this problem because the drones alone just won't do it.

SCIUTTO: No question. The drone strike is only as good as the intelligence as well.

Josh Rogan, Doug Brinkley, thanks very much.

Brooke, back to you in Baltimore. You can see how the crowds are growing there behind you.

BALDWIN: Yes, they have definitely grown. They're here in between, obviously you have city hall, and the war memorial. Several hundred, I would estimate several hundred people here gathering. I know some family members of Freddie Gray's are here in this crowd. They're about to speak. A woman who spoke, who lives in the neighborhood, she took one of the cell phone videos we're now seeing as far as a piece of this arrest.

So coming up, we'll talk to a former Maryland state police officer, also served the city of Baltimore, about this arrest, and if he thinks there was too much force, if protocol was followed. He definitely has some thoughts. He'll join me live. Stay here. You're watching CNN's special coverage.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:50:50] BALDWIN: You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin live here in Baltimore.

Another major rally getting underway here, right in front of city hall. A couple hundred of people already gathered there furious. You've seen the poster boards already out. We want justice for 25- year-old Freddie Gray. I mean, you have seen the videos. You have heard the cries from black men like gray. And Walter Scott and Eric Garner and Eric Harris who ultimately died after their encounters with police.

Now, let's be clear the cases are by no means identical. But the out cries from these communities strike the same chord. But as we see more and more graphic images like these, one question that's being asked are Americans become de-synthesized and will changed in law enforcement policy and prevention ever truly happen.

With me now, I have a former Maryland state police officer Neil Franklin, also serve in city of Baltimore for a number of years. And in New York, I have see his political commentator in "New York Times," op-ed columnist Charles Blow.

So, welcome to both of you.

And Mr. Franklin, let me just begin with you. You know, we're out here just over your shoulder, several thousand people -- several hundred people have amassed. And they're frustrated. We just heard from one of the women who shot one of the videos. You've seen the video. As someone who trained the head of training for Baltimore more city police, for four years your were with the city. And you see the video, of Freddie Gray on his stomach, being held. Officers' knees on his neck. Does that appear excessive to you or no?

NEIL FRANKLIN, FORMER MARYLAND STATE POLICE OFFICER: Well, from what I see in the video, it doesn't appear to be excessive. I mean, they already apprehended him. They already placed the cuffs on him. They're just holding him in this position until the wagon comes.

The issue is what happened before the video started rolling. How did they effect the arrest? How did they get him to the ground? You know, was there excessive force with the knee on the neck area? That's what we need to answer. There's no question in my mind this guy was injured during that time because you can hear him screaming.

And whether you think he's faking it or not, you have to pay attention to that. You're trained to pay attention to that. You're trained to render aid, even if you think someone is faking. But watching them carry him to the van, drag him to the van, he appeared to me to be in pain. Just the fact that he can stand up or prop himself, balance himself on the rear of the van, doesn't mean that he wasn't injured.

I mean, come on, I mean, I think that he was injured during the arrest. Then other things happened during transport. I also have questions about why they would place leg restraints on him once he's inside the van if he's handcuffed behind, properly seatbelt which I don't believe they did.

BALDWIN: We don't know if he was seatbelt or not.

FRANKLIN: According to the attorney Mike Davey, he wasn't. But that is Mike Davey saying it. But if he is, if you follow procedure, handcuff him in the rear, place him in the van, seatbelt him in, then he should be fine while transporting. But I believe he was injured and I believe something was aggravated, maybe the injury was aggravated during transport.

BALDWIN: OK. Charles Blow, you're listening to this conversation. And I know you had a lot of thought. We've talked a number of times. But I'm wondering to you on the point of -- if you and anyone out here whether or not they have become de-synthesized by these videos, I'm going to guess they would say hell no. But there was a new (INAUDIBLE) written by (INAUDIBLE) Smith, basically asking if this country has become de-synthesized to the killing of black in the hands of police. I mean, it's all now in hashtags and in all these videos. Do you think that's happening?

CHARLES BLOW, OP-ED COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I think it's a fair question, absolutely. Because here's what's happening. These are coming out so in such rapid succession none of them have a chance to resolve before we see the next video of yet another killing. And we see them, you know, kind of constantly played over and over, you know, for the hunt hundredth time. It's one thing to have it on a Web site or something you got to click a link to see. It's a different thing to have it play, you know, 20, 30, 40 times a day. And what does that say about the value of that particular life?

We make decisions in media all the time about whether or not we're going to show the taking of a life. And we make those decisions about whether or not we're going to show terrorists taking lives and ISIS, whether or not we're going to show the cutting of the throat. And a lot of people make decisions not to show that. And yet, we will show constantly black men losing their lives on TV.

And I do have to say, what does that do to us as a culture and whether or not it coarsens us as a culture? And we have to balance what, you know, the degree to which showing it, and showing how many of the same there are helps people to understand and no longer turn their eyes away from the realities of what's happening on the streets. And maybe called to some sort of action or at least realization and whether there comes a point where you run into diminishing returns in which case you start to, in our people, to the point they are no longer activated, in fact, become callus to the idea of these deaths.

And I think that is a real question. And I think it's kind of a philosophical media ethics question as much as it is a cultural question.

[15:56:33] BALDWIN: Sure. Sure.

Let me hit pause on this conversation. I'm being told General Petraeus, David Petraeus is speaking now live. We have to take that. Let's go.

What did he say? All right. I'm being told it was short. This is just after he was sentenced. That was David Petraeus there briefly. As soon as we get more on that we'll bring it back.

Let's continue where we were with Charles Blow and Neil Franklin.

I hear you on the ethics question, Charles Blow, and the devaluing almost of these lives as these videos are looped over and over. To you, from the perspective of a police officer, in fact, I continue to go back to what we know and this neighborhood. And everything that I understand, if you're an officer, right, if you probably know this part of Baltimore where this happened.

FRANKLIN: I grew up a few blocks north from the incident in (INAUDIBLE), yes.

BALDWIN: There you go. So OK you know the area. You know that if you're an officer in order to make this constitutional stop, is what they call it, this is considered a high crime area, which I know you have questions over you call an area high crime, the fact that they have to have reasonable suspicion. You say it's a tad too murky.

FRANKLIN: Well, it is.

BALDWIN: Why?

FRANKLIN: Because reasonable suspicion in this case comes from case law. We've got Ohio versus Harry (ph), for this particular case which involves someone making eye contact with police officer then unprovoked running that's from a 2000 Supreme Court case, which is Illinois versus Wardlow (ph). OK, so there's no specific criteria, it's kind of like reasonable suspicion is I have to be able to articulate it. So I'm going to have knowledge that I can articulate. For instance, if I know the individual, maybe I've arrested him before. And I'm not saying this is the case.

BALDWIN: Right.

FRANKLIN: But I'm just giving you an example. If I've arrested him before, I know this is his favorite spot for doing whatever that criminal behavior may be. Now, I roll up and I make eye contact, and then he runs, now I've got something a little bit more. But just to roll up in a so-called high crime area, which is just about any part of this wonderful city that we're in. To make eye contact and the person runs the other way, as far as I'm concerned, and what we teach, that is not reasonable suspicion. Because let me tell you when the police roll up on any corner in this city, and young men are just standing around talking, nobody wants to interact with the police. And you are going to turn and you are going to go another way.

BALDWIN: Right. And I know family and especially hearing from the attorney, you know, saying he should have run faster the other direction. This is that perspective and they're questioning any kind of reasonable suspicion those officers had.

Charles Blow, to you. You're listening to this entire conversation. And I was reading a piece of yours in "the Times" when you were talking about disobedience in death, right? You were referring to the Walter Scott case, but in a lot of these cases people are bringing up they shouldn't have run. What was your point there in the last 30 seconds I have?

[15:59:49] BLOW: Well, I think all of that goes to the murkiness. It's not even just what the officer was talking about. It's all of the constructions of fear. What does that even mean? Like what, you know, are you afraid of me, and do you have a right to be afraid of me? And how often in these cases -- not in this particular case, but other cases that we have encountered where people say I thought I saw something in his waist band. Do black man now have to start wearing leotards to get rid of the waistband issue?

All of this stuff is so murky. There's so much incredible discretion, there's so much discretion around what is excessive force, so that you can craft an argument and a legal way out of it so that you will come back with a rendering that says that this person did nothing that was outside of policy, although ethically, it seems wrong. It seems wrong that so many of these young black men are losing their lives when the justice system could have dealt with them with a lesser degree.

BALDWIN: Charles Blow, Neil Franklin, thank you both very much.

I'm Brooke Baldwin, here live, in Baltimore. Thank you for being with me these last two hours. We have to go to Jake Tapper -- THE LEAD starts now.