Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Italian Terror Roundup; Weinstein Family Paid Captors; Identifying Targets; Baltimore Protests. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired April 24, 2015 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: For being with us "AT THIS HOUR." LEGAL VIEW begins with Randi Kaye today right now.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Randi Kaye, in for Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

A major international anti-terrorism operation is going on right now. Police with handfuls of arrest warrants for Islamic extremists, suspected bomb makers, terrorist money men, people who once dealt directly with Osama bin Laden. Some of them have been under surveillance now for years and today they are being rounded up.

Here's where it's happening, all over Italy. Officials there have never gone after so many terror suspects at the very same time. And this explains some of the urgency, evidence shows that this terror cell had a list of targets. And on that list, the home of the pope, and heart of the catholic church, the Vatican. Today's countrywide operation is the payoff from years of wiretaps and other intelligence gathering that pointed to men believed to have played a part in bombings overseas that killed hundreds of people.

CNN's Nic Robertson is following developments in Italy for us right now. Also here with me in New York is terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank.

Nic, to you first. Is the massive anti-terrorism operation still going on?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It is - it is still going on, at least that's what we understand from the Italian authorities. They say that they are targeting 18 different people that they're trying to round up here.

This is a group that they - they say they've had under surveillance since 2005 and had wiretaps on various members until 2012, but then they say they had other means of gathering information and intelligence on what they were doing and what they were planning. They say that the group was sending money to Pakistan, that they were planning attacks from Italy, even traveling to Pakistan to perpetrate the attacks. So it does seem that the Italian authorities have - should have, by this stage, a wealth of information that really should allow them to sort of hone in on this group. But they're describing this as the largest thing of this nature that they've ever done, Randi.

KAYE: And, Nic, you've said they've been watching this group for years, so why swoop in now and round them up today?

ROBERTSON: You know, that's something they're not actually telling us and neither are they saying how this attack or possible attack, as they've said, against the Vatican, they say that they believe that this group had been planning, was planning attacks in Italy. One of the potential targets, the Vatican, that the group may have brought into the country somebody's they called a kamikaze. I think from what we heard from the prosecutor, the idea would be to explode a bomb in a very crowded place. I think the best understanding for kamikaze here is suicide bomber. But, again, this was something that didn't happen, and indeed the Vatican's downplaying that, and the police not saying that either. So not saying why the arrests are happening now or how this - how this possible attack in 2010 was averted, Randi.

KAYE: And how realistic, I mean, was this planned attack on the Vatican? I mean, as you said, it's a wide open place. It's full of tourists. Enormous crowds gathering there all the time.

ROBERTSON: On the surface it would seem a potentially large and potentially soft target. You think of Vatican Square, you think of the thousands and thousands of people that gather in that square for services on a Sunday, so, in that way, potentially. But if the Italian authorities were watching and listening to this group, as much as they appear to have done, they perhaps felt that they were confident that nothing was going to - no operational plan was going to happen while they - while they had this sort of close surveillance, if they will.

KAYE: Yes.

ROBERTSON: But they say that the group here, mostly Pakistanis, you know, they were sending a lot of money to Pakistan for attacks there in support of al Qaeda and other terror groups there. So it's not a group without means. So it was - it was the Italians belief very credible planning process that was going on for an attack in Italy. Was it and was it really going to be the Vatican? At the moment they're just saying probably possibly (ph).

KAYE: Yes. Let me bring in Paul here to weigh in because, of course, this begs the question, you know, how does Italy rank in terms of terror cells and those looking to do wrong? I mean where are they operating there?

PAUL CRUICKSHANK, CNN TERRORISM ANALYST: Italy has a significant radicalization problem like many other European countries, like France, like Germany, like the U.K. They're very worried about people going off to Syria. There's a significant kind of Arab immigrant population in Italy, north African immigrant population. So all the sort of trends we've seen throughout Europe, we also see in Italy.

[12:04:52] Up to around 6,000 European extremists have traveled to go and fight or join up with groups like ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate there. So there's a lot of concern. And also Italy is in the - on the Mediterranean. There's concern about this new ISIS presence in Libya. Italian fishermen, just the other week, demanded protection from the Italian navy because they're concerned that ISIS is going to launch from fast boats from the northern coast of Libya to attack Italian fisheries. So they're grappling with a lot of threats right now for sure.

KAYE: Does it - does it worry you that this group is very organized or do you think this is not a very organized group?

CRUICKSHANK: This appears to be a quite organized group with connections to organized crime, involved in some drug trafficking, people smuggling, that kind of thing. And whenever you have that interaction with organized crime, it's already worrying because it gives them the opportunity to assemble weapons and they may have some experience in the use of weapons.

And, in fact, the Italian police found a lot of weapons on them and some of this cell were involved in a very deadly attack, the Italians allege, in Peshawar that killed more than 100 people in October 2009. So some track record with terrorism, mostly in Pakistan, but the Italians are saying that there may have been some kind of plan back in 2010, perhaps to attack the Vatican, though that does seem probably quite an aspirational type of plot. These wiretaps that they're sort of difficult to interpret, perhaps they were talking in Urdu or Pashto.

KAYE: Yes.

CRUICKSHANK: So difficult to know exactly for sure what they were planning.

KAYE: All right, many thanks to Paul Cruickshank and also Nic Robertson. Thank you both.

We are learning more about what led to the raid on an al Qaeda compound that killed two innocent hostages, including American Warren Weinstein. The U.S. forced to confront the reality of what happened as we get new, heartbreaking details about all of his years in captivity.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:10:10] KAYE: A day after the world learned that a U.S. drone strike mistakenly killed two western hostages and two American al Qaeda figures in Pakistan, details are coming out about the strike, the aftermath and the long captivity of American Warren Weinstein. A source, who'd been in near daily contact with Weinstein's kidnappers, tells CNN the aide worker's family paid the captors an undisclosed amount of money in 2012. After that, the source says the captors demanded a prisoner swap, Weinstein for jihadis held by the west. And even though the fatal strike was in January, the source says the kidnappers claimed Weinstein was alive as recently as this month.

Now I could go on, but I want to bring in our chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto, who's in Washington. I'm joined here in New York by CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank once again and by former Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent Jonathan Gilliam.

Jim, to you first on this. What more do we know about Weinstein's ordeal and contacts with his captors?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is interesting news that his family and it's understandable a family to make every desperate attempt to win the release of their loved one here. We know that the family expressed frustration with government efforts. This is something we hear often, not just with captives. For instance, the Foley family, captive with ISIS, captives with al Qaeda, but I've spoken with the families of Americans held in Iran now by the government, frustration with efforts to get them out, some of which is natural.

But in this case, it looks like the possibility that this family was scammed. If you have the interlocutor saying that the captors were claiming he was alive into the month of April, when we know that he was killed in a strike in the middle of January, and that's one of the dangers here whether or not he's alive or they're lying or they're actually representing the kidnappers, they have the control. And here was a case where they appear to have paid money, the source telling CNN, and later they come back and say actually we want more money or we want a prisoner exchange. So, you know, real questions as to whether they actually represented the captives -

KAYE: Yes.

SCIUTTO: And beyond that if they were trustworthy interlocutors. It shows the - it shows the dangers there and it shows one of the reasons why the U.S. government, the FBI, et cetera, are comfortable with people taking that path.

KAYE: Yes, so frustrating, though, for the family.

Paul, what do you make of the source's claims also that the Iraqis were pairing - preparing the so-called orange jumpsuit for Warren Weinstein?

CRUICKSHANK: Well, I mean, the story goes that there was a sort of threat that if they weren't to get a ransom or weren't to get a prisoner exchange, that they would send them off to Iraq presumably to ISIS and that ISIS would then dress them up in orange jumpsuits. I think that was probably just a scare tactic. Al Qaeda and ISIS basically hate each other's guts. There's not any love loss between the two organizations. So I think that was just a scare tactic for them to try to get money, to get - try to get some sort of prisoner release.

KAYE: Do you think that the U.S. -I mean that they could have explored some back channel means to try and save this guy?

CRUICKSHANK: They could have done. I mean, you know, they could have explored that with perhaps the Pakistani government helping out. But the problem is, the Pakistani government doesn't have connections and ties necessarily to al Qaeda either and if - if, you know, it's just the Pakistani government that's paying a ransom, then a ransom's paid anyway. And al Qaeda was saying that there had to be the - a release of a number of prisoners, amongst them Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheikh, somebody who's - who was convicted here in New York for that bombing against the World Trade Center back in '93. The chance of the United States wanting to do that, zero.

KAYE: Yes.

Jonathan, let me ask you about the intel because, I mean, there was no sign of the two hostages apparently according to the intelligence. There was no sign of these two American al Qaeda members either. So are the terrorists that good at sneaking around or is our intel just not that good?

JONATHAN GILLIAM, FORMER NAVY SEAL: Well, I think it's a combination of intel is very difficult in these foreign lands to get. And I think after, you know, 15 years of war, of active war, where they're able to see our tactics, techniques and procedures, it's much easier for them now to get around and develop their own tactics, techniques and procedures to thwart ours and our ability to see them. And I think that probably played a huge role in this.

You know, one of the things, though, that I - I just don't think is being looked at enough, we're looking at the policies of drone strikes, we need to start looking at the policies of why so many people are in a war zone that should not be there. That, I think, is first and foremost something that we need to look at - so that there's no more Weinsteins over there that are not prepared to be in a war zone.

KAYE: Yes, that is certainly a big issue. But let me just ask you very quickly about "the New York Times" reporting that the U.S. only knew something went wrong when six bodies were pulled from this rubble as opposed to four.

GILLIAM: Right.

KAYE: What kind of - what happens now? I mean is there some type of post attack meeting or intelligence? I mean how do they assess what went wrong?

[12:15:01] GILLIAM: Well, the post-operation intelligence is just as important as the intelligence leading up to that because you need to know if you got the target that you were going after and what the results of that operation actually was. And I think this actually shows where intel works. You know, they saw that there were six bodies coming out instead of four. That is the detail of intelligence that you want beforehand. Unfortunately, you know, in this case, it was not able to tell them there were two more people inside that building.

KAYE: All right. Jonathan Gilliam, Paul Cruickshank and Jim Sciutto, thank you all very, very much.

In Pakistan, the White House has rules allowing CIA drone strikes, even if they don't know exactly whom they're aiming at. But what happens when that uncertainty means innocent civilians may also be in harm's way? Can you shoot first and ask questions later?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: The accidental killing of two western hostages in a U.S. drone strike reignites the debate over drones in general and the rules, such as they are, of targeting Americans. Now, legally, there are two kinds of drone strikes, so-called signature strikes, permitted in Pakistan where you do not have to identify those you're targeting, and more specific kill list strikes, where each individual target is known, identified and approved by the president.

Time to bring in my lawyers to talk about this. CNN legal analyst Paul Callan and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

All right, Joey, so how much due process do U.S. citizens who join up with these terror organizations actually deserve?

[12:19:59] JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, deserve is another matter, OK, Randi, because, of course, we know that they're engaged in terrible acts of, you know, treason against the country. You're talking about acts of terrorism. You're talking about plotting and planning to kill and destroy American lives. And that's a problem.

You know, but as Americans, obviously, what happens is, is that we're a country founded upon due process, founded upon having rights and founded upon protecting those individual freedoms. Whether they believe the same matters, obviously they don't, which is why they are where they are doing what they do.

KAYE: Yes. But, Paul, I mean, from a purely legal perspective in terms of these two different kind of strikes, I mean how do you justify stricter drone strikes in one country versus the other?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't think it's very easy to make that distinction. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment says, you can't deprive an American citizen of his life or liberty without due process of law. And this is what is tearing people apart as they look at this horrible world that we're in now. We're not fighting an identifiable enemy except, you know, sort of these vague terrorist groups, they're trying to kill us, and can we target their leaders and can we kill one of their leaders if it is an American citizen?

You know, we're looking at the Tsarnaev trial up in Boston. Look at the amount of time we spend agonizing about whether he gets put to death or not for his terrorist act and yet, abroad, if the president says drone strike on an American citizen, can the president order his death? This is a very, very hard question and it's a new question for the American system of justice.

KAYE: But sticking with -- you want to weigh in on the?

JACKSON: No, go ahead.

KAYE: OK. Sticking with that line of questioning, though, I mean the officials are saying that neither of these two American al Qaeda members were targeted, right? So does the -

CALLAN: They're saying it was an accident, yes.

KAYE: Right. Exactly. They weren't specifically targeted. So does that sidestep the whole due process question because really what would - what would stop the U.S. government from saying, all the time, that this was a mistake they weren't targeted, this was an accident, right? JACKSON: I think it certainly changes the dynamic, Randi, in as much

as what did they say, it was an accident. It was predicated upon bad intelligence. But we do know, based upon the fact that they were high level targets, high level American citizens, that they wouldn't be visible, they wouldn't otherwise be exposed and the intelligence, you could see where it would be flawed in that regard.

But at the end of the day, you know, do people have rights? Absolutely. Do American citizens have rights? Absolutely. But at the same time, you have to look at the nature of the threat that they pose and the horrific consequences of the actions that they engage in and that's the problem.

KAYE: Why don't you weigh in on that.

CALLAN: Well, I think historically when we're looking back in this era and we have all of the records and we know what really happened, I think we're going to find out that this - it was an accidental hit on an American citizen is sort of a convenient excuse. Maybe you don't - aren't as thorough in your investigation about who's in the room when the strike hits because you want to take out important targets. I'm not saying that that happened, but I am saying, we don't have enough information to know what the government knew when it ordered the strike.

JACKSON: The only problem with that, Randi, is it implies bad faith. I don't know what the president knew, what he didn't know. I don't know what intelligence was there, what intelligence wasn't there.

KAYE: Right.

JACKSON: But I don't want to impart or imply bad faith. Apparently the United States is attempting to protect us in the best way they possibly can.

KAYE: And we have to go with what they tell us.

JACKSON: They engage in these strikes for purposes of protecting civilian lives in the United States and other places and so in the event that they didn't know, I mean who's to say that they are clear (INAUDIBLE) -

CALLAN: I do think though, Joey, that the one thing that I think is very, very important, if you're going to take out an American citizen, if you're going to do a targeted assassination because he's an enemy of the United States, you better have that ordered directly by the president of the United States and not delegate to some underling. Now here, of course, they say this was accidental.

JACKSON: Right.

KAYE: Right.

CALLAN: So the president didn't directly order it. But if they know it's a hit on an American citizen, it better be the commander in chief making the decision. JACKSON: Agreed.

CALLAN: Yes.

JACKSON: But that's not this case.

CALLAN: No, it's not.

KAYE: That is not this case.

CALLAN: That's right.

KAYE: Absolutely right.

All right, Paul Callan, Joey Jackson, nice to see you guys.

CALLAN: Thank you.

KAYE: Thank you.

In Baltimore, another night of protests over the death of Freddie Gray. We'll take you live to Baltimore for new information about what happened in the police van that may shed light on Gray's injuries.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Hands up. Don't shoot. Hands up. Don't shoot. Hands up. Don't shoot. Hands up. Don't shoot. Hands up. Don't shoot.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:27:28] KAYE: People in Baltimore, furious with the police, filled the streets again overnight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are people that are crying, frustrated, and we want answers now.

What do we want?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: These are people who are not satisfied with the official explanation for the death of Freddie Gray who somehow suffered severe injuries while being arrested. I say somehow because so far the police are saying nothing about what happened about how Gray was hurt so badly that he died. And it's been nearly six days now, no answers.

CNN's Joe Johns is live in Baltimore right now.

And, Joe, some protesters were arrested last night. What about today and the weekend? Are they expecting more tension there? JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think there is an expectation of more

tension here. Look, Randi, the weekend comes, people are off of work, they're out of school, and there's an opportunity for much larger crowds. And not only do they have the weekend to deal with, a large rally expected tomorrow. Right after that, on Monday, we have the funeral of Freddie Gray. So there are concerns about the message that has been presented here from the ministers and the mostly peaceful protesters, whether that might be hijacked in some way, and that's the kind of concern that you see in almost every city where there's been allegations of police misuse of force, Randi.

KAYE: And, Joe, what do the protesters want? I mean, of course, we know they want answers, but who do they hold responsible here?

JOHNS: It depends on who you talk to. This morning a group held a news conference and they called for the resignation or termination of the police commissioner here. They also asked for an apology from the fraternal order of police for likening the demonstrators to a lynch mob.

So, later today, we're expecting to hear from a group that is calling on the governor of the state of Maryland to use his own executive powers to try to change some of the issues that have arisen in the Freddie Gray investigation. One of the big issues I think that people have talked about here is the law enforcement officers bill of rights in the state of Maryland which gives officers some protections in the event of an investigation. It has been seen by the officers as something they like. However, some city officials in Maryland have been very concerned that they haven't been able to discipline certain officers and ask them questions when they want to. So that's a continuing concern in this state, Randi.

[14:30:07] KAYE: Yes, certainly a lot of frustration there as well. Thank you very much, Joe Johns, in Baltimore for us.

And next hour we expect to have a live news conference from the mayor