Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Obama Authorized ISIS Raid; NTSB: Object May Have Struck Derailed Train; Jury Chose Death On Six Counts Related To Second Bomb; U.S. Special Ops Kill Key ISIS Figure In Syria; Former Egyptian President Sentenced To Death. Aired 11-12a ET

Aired May 16, 2015 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. It is 11:00 on the East Coast. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. NEWSROOM starts right now.

Our coverage of the breaking news in the battle against ISIS continues. U.S. Special Operations conduct a raid deep in eastern Syria killing a senior ISIS figure and capturing his wife. The story reported first on CNN from Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: U.S. Army special operations forces and that means Delta Force went in by helicopter, under orders to try and capture this man. But apparently a firefight broke out. Hand-to-hand combat, he resisted. He was killed in the firefight along with other ISIS fighters there; his wife captured and taken back to Iraq.

The big question, why this guy, why was it worth risking so many U.S. military lives to go after him? What we are being told is he was an ISIS leader, if you will, in their oil and gas operations. So that's very key because of the financial impact, the financial benefit to ISIS. But perhaps more serious even, there had been a sense by the U.S. that he was increasingly involved in ISIS command and control, in ISIS operations. And U.S. Officials are beginning to indicate there may have been a reason to believe he might have been in contact at some point with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the very reclusive leader of ISIS, the guy the U.S., of course, wants to get.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right. Let's talk more about this. Senior international correspondent Nick Paton Walsh is with us now from Beirut. So Nick, you have covered ISIS extensively. What more can you tell us about this Tunisian citizen and his role in ISIS?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not much more than the White House and Pentagon have said. He's not somebody who was a familiar name. Abu Sayyaf I should point out is a nom de guerre. It is not his real name. We do have a name who ISIS experts think is his real name. But that may be wrong. So I'm not going to share it with you in this particular medium. But the Pentagon say he's a man who is behind the oil and gas operations. We know they're very lucrative for ISIS in the beginning about a year ago when they made millions a day it was said through smuggling oil out of oil-rich Iraq. But a lot of airstrikes against oil infrastructure have significantly degraded that capacity and that reversed it. So that's the real money maker for ISIS at this stage.

There's a suggestion that this man was growing in his military and operational role and there are also suggestions that perhaps he had comms on him. He had phones or e-mail addresses or computers on them that might lead him to other people. I think that is the more potential, credible reason as to why this enormous risk was endured by the White House and Pentagon to undertake this operation.

We've been hearing potentially, he was close to Mohammed al-Abdani, the main ISIS spokesperson and perhaps he was also in contact with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. If that were the case, they may have thought they would get one of those two men by launching this operation.

This was an extraordinarily hard feat -- the Delta Forces here. We're talking about the al-Omar oil field, one of the most heavily fortified lairs that ISIS have, a five-kilometer deep security zone on the outskirts around it. They had to soften it up it seemed with airstrikes beforehand according to local witnesses who'd been speaking to one of my colleagues.

So a lot that had to be done just to insert this extraordinarily risk- tolerant Delta Force. They must have thought the prize was worth it. Imagine the complex explanation the White House will be going through at this stage, had this, God forbid, operation gone wrong. A lot of questions I think still to be answered -- exactly what perhaps was in the U.S. crosshairs but didn't turn out to be there -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: Ok. So the prize is clearly him. He's been taken out. But at the same time you mentioned the comms, the communications -- the phones, the computers, all of those assets. So presumably these special operations forces were able to secure that. So that, too, is part of the prize?

WALSH: Well, we know from the bin Laden raid was that when they gathered all of his treasure trove of information from his lair in Abbottabad, there was a rush to go through and digest it but of course, because the helicopter blew out and it was quite clear what happened, news of the raid leaked. So they didn't have the time perhaps they may have wanted to go through all that detail and then look for other key al Qaeda leaders then.

This potentially is a similar case. Abu Sayyaf -- as I say, we're still trying to work out how significant really he was. He's not a key name. Not part of the major four or five sought by the U.S. in their wanted list. He may have had information in those cell phones that would lead them on to somebody else. I'm sure that the U.S. would have immediately tried to act on that and then pursue those individuals with that real-time information.

[11:05:11] But news of the raid began to leak out through activists in the area -- talking on social media, and also Syrian state television. The head of the Pentagon announced in fact talks about how it was their forces who had gone in and killed the ISIS oil minister in their words.

So the information was clearly coming out there. That obviously limited how maybe useful it would have been for ISIS intelligence to be acted upon by the U.S. It's always a perishable commodity. So yes, I mean a very complex night certainly and one in which I think we still have yet to hear the full story -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: So one woman was, who was being held against her will, was freed and then the other woman, we believe, that has been captured, is Abu Sayyaf's wife. What kind of role might she play in the whole structure of ISIS? What kind of information would they be able to get out of her?

WALSH: One of the more confusing things about the White House's version of events here is the notion that Umm Sayyaf -- and that is not her real name. That means the mother of Sayyaf. So Abu Sayyaf and Umm Sayyaf are the mother and father of a child called Sayyaf -- we know that. That she was actually, intricately involved in human trafficking in ISIS' day-to-day operations. That's entirely feasible, but it's rare. We don't normally see ISIS using women in their leadership. They don't seem to have that often a role in the day-to- day operations.

Women in the vision that ISIS have for society take a secondary role certainly and there are women who support them on social media, who travel to Iraq and Syria, to be with them, to be in the kind of society they espouse. But unlike, for example, the Syrian Kurds where the women fight alongside the men, it's a very much more chauvinistic society, I think it's fair.

It would be strange if Umm Sayyaf was integral to ISIS' day to day operation. Not impossible and maybe the U.S. had very clear intelligence to that effect but it does potentially give rise to the notion that her capture was a lucky side effect for the U.S. of this raid rather than something they were planning on in the first place.

But yes, the Yazidi woman, one of hundreds if not thousands of Yazidis abducted when ISIS moved into northern Iraq toward Mount Sinjar, she is now free and the U.S. says she will be reunited with her family -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: All right. Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much. We'll check back with you from Beirut. Thank you so much.

All right. Meantime, the National Security Council says President Obama ordered the raid with their unanimous recommendation and support.

Let's get more now from the White House. CNN national correspondent Sunlen Serfaty is there. What more do we know about the sequence of events that led up to this authorization?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we don't have any specific reaction from President Obama himself yet -- Fred. But we do know that as you said, President Obama made the call that would be a call that would specifically come from him. To order this mission order, this raid. And the National Security Council says that was done after a unanimous recommendation from his national security team, indicating that the intelligence showed that it was sufficient, that it had been developed and that they were confident that the mission could be carried out successfully.

We do have a statement from the Secretary of Defense, responding to this mission, saying quote, "The operation represents another significant blow to ISIL. And it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens and those of our friends and allies."

Now we know that President Obama has been regularly briefed on this mission by his national security team -- Fred.

WHITFIELD: So Sunlen, this comes at great risk, right? I mean the White House is acknowledging that. There was a similar attempt last year, with special ops being sent in to Syria to win the release of hostages. Why did the White House and why did the national security team feel that this was worth the risk this time?

SERFATY: Well, that definitely is a key question. The National Security Council describing this as a complex mission this morning when they released a lengthy statement about the raid. But the big question is was this terrorist, was Abu Sayyaf, was it worth it to go in? And what did they know about what he knew within the ISIS leadership?

We know that the White House at least, they call him senior ISIS leader, and they say that even though it should be noted as Nick Paton Walsh has been talking about, he wasn't necessarily high profile within the ISIS leadership. But a senior administration official here at the White House tells me that they do have indications that he potentially would have interacted with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Of course that is a main ISIS leader that the United States has been trying to locate for so long so that's why this was a capture mission. They wanted to go in and capture Abu Sayyaf, gain any intel that they had about Baghdadi and elsewhere ISIS leadership. But this mission obviously turned into a kill mission after we know that Abu Sayyaf fired on those U.S. Forces.

[11:10:04] WHITFIELD: All right. Sunlen Serfaty, thank you so much. Keep us posted especially if the President does comment on it this weekend.

All right. Joining me now via Skype, CNN military analyst, retired Major General James "Spider" Marks. Good to see you.

MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Hi Fred.

WHITFIELD: Let's talk more about this. So Abu Sayyaf, not the name that people have come to know. But why in your view, is it important that these special ops would target operational leaders? He, presumably being one of them?

MARKS: Well, he was more than an operational leader. In fact, we would probably characterize him, the United States, the intelligence community, would characterize him as the CFO of ISIS. He was the one responsible for all the oil and gas revenue which is clearly the primary source of their ability to conduct operations.

So the fact that the United States intelligence community and with support of others, were able to zero in on his location, clearly there was some confirming intelligence that gave the United States the comfort to know that there were high risks but there was a likelihood of high reward and therefore the decision was made to execute this raid. And not to go after this individual by some other means, for example, a shot from a drone or from some other type of aircraft or some other means.

WHITFIELD: So given he would have so much information, why in your view would he be taken out? And the other prize I spoke with, you know, Nick Paton Walsh about this, the other prize being the other kind of evidence that maybe in that compound, such as cell phones and computers and that information, is something that the Special Ops forces leave -- not empty handed at all.

MARKS: No, not at all -- Fredricka. In fact, clearly the objective was framed in what we know as a kill or capture. The commander on the ground, the senior person on the ground has the authority to make the decision if it's going to be one or the other. And the circumstances as described, as we understand them now, is that there had to be the order to kill, because of the resistance that was provided.

But following that, there was the capture of his wife, who ostensibly is deeply involved in his former activities, not only as the CFO but involved --

WHITFIELD: Should they feel confident that she would talk though?

MARKS: You're never confident that anybody is going to talk. That's why you have interrogators and that's why there will be a period of interrogation. She's being interrogated right now in a facility in Iraq, protected by the United States, outside protected by the Iraqis with the full understanding that they need to get information from her. But there's also a deep exploitation that's taking place right now, Fredricka, on all the intelligence that the special operators were able to bring back as a result of that raid.

WHITFIELD: Like what? How would they do that?

MARKS: It's phenomenal what they'll probably uncover.

This was the CFO of ISIS. And of all the different verticals and cut- outs that you will have in this black organization where command and control is really not known very well, the CFO cuts across all of those. This is the individual who is responsible for funding activities, for getting revenue. For having the contributors to make sure that ISIS can continue to exercise the type of activities that they have. So she is available to answer questions. Information that they gathered from the raid will hopefully be able to determine what we would call a target list, what the United States would call a target list in terms of what else is out there, that now the United States and its partners can go after, to further degrade ISIS.

WHITFIELD: And is there great confidence that he is indeed the CFO? Or might there be many CFOs, so to speak? You take out one, like Abu Sayyaf and there's somebody else that steps in his place?

MARKS: Well, you know, most organizations, the CFO is kind of revered as we all know. I'm saying that with a bit of a smile. So this is a person who enjoys great access, enjoys great power. And in fact, has so much information. In many cases albeit everybody is -- no one is irreplaceable. But in this case, the loss of the CFO within ISIS is a significant damaging result. That is going to put ISIS on its heels. It's certainly not the end game at all.

But we might be moving in a different direction, with the loss of this individual, but more importantly, the capturing of the intelligence that will allow the intelligence community to get a better picture of who is out there and who is providing funding. Those then become targets to go after again.

WHITFIELD: And you already use the terminology, you said high risk, high payoff. But kind of defend this operation technique because it is high risk to have the personnel choppered in, dropped in as opposed to a missile strike or a drone strike which would be broader. This is more of a surgical approach. Why take this kind of approach?

[11:15:04] MARKS: Fredricka, the key result that you want from an operation like this, is the intelligence that can be derived. If you took a drone strike, that would incinerate everything that's there. You would also get into the long debate as to who was on the ground, who was targeted, what were the results. Who does the DNA sampling? How do you understand what's going on?

Then you have this game of marketing and dueling that's taking place, both from the United States and from ISIS that says you didn't harm us, this was no big deal and we're trying, and the United States is trying to make this a big deal. It is a big deal. And the United States has been able to take the results of this strike and exploitation is taking place right now to see if there's something else that's actionable that would allow the United States to go back and say look, we've got some really good intelligence I think that the United States can have a re-strike. This is an extremely, extremely big grab.

WHITFIELD: I know I'm getting gruesome with this last question, but I got to know. Would they remove, take the body of Abu Sayyaf?

MARKS: They could, absolutely. They absolutely could. There certainly would be room for that. They had positive identification on the individual. So I could see taking that individual back for proof of what took place. But more importantly as we've discussed, Fredricka, it's the amount of intelligence that's available for future exploitation.

WHITFIELD: All right. Major General Spider Marks -- thanks so much. Good to see you.

MARKS: Thank you -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Be sure to tune in to CNN at 7:00 p.m. tomorrow, to see Fareed Zakaria's CNN special, "BLINDSIDED: HOW ISIS SHOOK THE WORLD".

And we will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: All right.

We'll talk more about ISIS later, but right now we're following new developments this morning into the Amtrak crash investigation. An FBI forensics team has now been called in to assist investigators. They will be looking into the possibility that some damage to the windshield of the train may have been caused by some sort of projectile hitting the train before it derailed and Train 188 could be just one of three trains hit by objects that night.

Erin McLaughlin is live for us now in Philadelphia following the investigation. So Erin -- what more do we know about the damage to the windshield?

ERIN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi -- Fredricka. Well, investigators say they're very interested in a circular pattern, a fist-sized circular pattern markings located on the lower left-hand side of the windshield. They think it may be the result of some sort of projectile that hit the train prior to the crash. And they're so interested that they've asked the FBI's forensic team to come in and analyze those markings further.

In addition to that, they interviewed yesterday, the assistant conductor who was on board that train, she says that shortly before the crash, she heard radio transmission between the Amtrak dispatcher and an engineer that was on board a separate SEPTA train, that was in the region. That SEPTA engineer, she says she believes told the Amtrak dispatcher that a projectile hit his windshield.

Now she said that following that, she heard from her engineer, Brandon Bastion, 32 years old, the Amtrak 188 engineer say that a projectile hit Amtrak 188. so this is something that authorities are following up on. They're interviewing that SEPTA engineer to try and get more information, deepening this mystery.

We're also hearing reports from passengers who were on board a separate Amtrak ACELA train. A third train that night, those passengers said that their train was also struck by some sort of projectile -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: All right.

And then Erin, the NTSB has now interviewed the train's engineer. What more is being learned from him?

MACLAUGHLIN: They said that Brandon Bostian was very cooperative. He said that he was not feeling any sort of fatigue or any sort of illness prior to the crash. He said that he -- they said that he demonstrated an incredible knowledge of the area as well. But he simply does not remember what happened. The last thing he says he remembers is driving the train through the north Philadelphia station, ringing the bell and then everything else is just a massive blank.

His attorney says that it's hopeful that once his concussion subsides, the concussion that he suffered in that crash, that his memory may return -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: And then do we know, you know, when service is going to resume? We're talking about the weekend, and you know, thousands of people rely on the Amtrak northeast corridor every day but particularly on weekends when people you know, are returning from work or getting ready for the work week.

MCLAUGHLIN: Yes, now we know they are hard at work trying to repair the railroad. Amtrak authorities have said that service has been suspended along the New York/Philadelphia route through Monday. There is a possibility that some sort of service may return on Tuesday.

WHITFIELD: All right. Erin McLaughlin -- thanks so much, keep us posted from Philadelphia.

Let's talk more about the Amtrak investigation. Joining me right now: Mary Schiavo, she's a CNN transportation specialist and a former inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation -- good to see you. Richard Beall has more than 30 years of railroad operating experience. He is also a former train accident investigator for an insurance company. And CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Philip Holloway here with me in Atlanta. Good to see all of you.

All right. This investigation is now looking at the possibility that the train had been struck by some sort of projectile. So Richard, you've worked on crash reconstructions, what is the possible link between something hitting a windshield and the train accelerating as rapidly as it did?

RICHARD BEALL, RAILROAD OPERATION AND SAFETY CONSULTANT: Well the correlation is the fact that he was accelerating, he would have had his throttle wide open, trying to get up to track speed. Had there been some sort of an event like something hitting his windshield, and he would not know exactly what hit his windshield, all he knows is he's traveling along and boom, something large hits. He doesn't know whether it's a gunshot, something large being thrown, something being kicked up from the track. He just doesn't know. So he may have done something like dive to the floor, or you know, jumped out of the way, just not knowing what it was. And at that point, the throttle is still wide open and accelerating the train.

[11:25:01] And if he possibly got an injury from whatever came through that windshield or caused a chunk of that windshield to hit him maybe the reason why he doesn't know or remember what took place and why the engine kept going at full speed.

WHITFIELD: Mary is it plausible that perhaps this engineer given what, you know, Richard just painted there, that perhaps he was disoriented, maybe lost track of time. Knowing that the speed would have to be reduced with that upcoming turn?

MARY SCHIAVO, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: Yes, I think Richard pose as very plausible explanation. And this might be the piece of the puzzle we were missing because the engineer was, was described as somebody who was conscientious, he was clearly alert, he hadn't fallen asleep because he was talking on the radio to another train. The fact that there are two other trains -- a total of three -- gives an important clue.

And by the way, this is something -- I've worked on many cases where people have thrown things and shot at everything from trains, cars, planes. It's amazing or it should be amazing how often this happens but this could be the missing puzzle. The fact that the third train was hit on the side makes me think it's more gun rather than rock off an overpass. But we don't know yet.

WHITFIELD: And then Philip, you know at least one suit has already been filed and that being from an Amtrak employee who states that even Amtrak may have been negligent. So the investigation is yet to be completed. And with this kind of new possible information, how might that impact any kind of civil or criminal case against Amtrak?

PHILIP HOLLOWAY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we know that trains do not accelerate to 106 miles per hour by themselves. And we also know that it takes a human hand to manipulate that throttle. At 106 miles per hour, in a 50-mile-an-hour curve, from a legal perspective there has to be a very good reason for that. And the explanation that was just given could potentially be that very good reason.

Otherwise, you're in the realm of negligence or potentially criminal negligence, or God forbid, an intentional act. I don't think there's been any evidence to suggest that it was intentional. But from a legal perspective, those would be the things that the investigators are looking at, trying to find out whether or not this was something that was criminal or something that was simply an accident or perhaps a result of some third party's criminal misconduct.

WHITFIELD: Does filing a suit so early in the game kind of undermine the possibilities of it being -- you know bringing any real validity?

HOLLOWAY: Well, I think the reason that the suits were filed so early is because these lawyers want to, you know, get out there, hey, they are litigating this case and perhaps they may want to bring in additional clients, that's one possibility. But you know it's -- it's dangerous to go off and file a lawsuit alleging negligence until you know all of the facts and circumstances.

One thing, though, I think in these lawsuits, they're going to point to is that the absence of this positive train control that Amtrak, you know, they're going to say was negligent for not having it on that portion of the track at that time. WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks so much, Philip and Richard and Mary.

We're going to talk later more about this. Thanks to all of you, appreciate it.

WHITFIELD: We'll be right back with much more in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: The appeals process could take years, but it only took a Boston federal jury 14-1/2 hours to sentence Boston marathon bomber, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, to death. The 21-year-old showed no visible emotion as the sentence was read.

The several survivors and relatives of victims wiped tears from their eyes and now that the sentence has been handed down. What's next in this case?

Joining me to talk more about this, CNN legal analyst, Paul Callan in New York, and here in Atlanta, criminal defense attorney, Page Pate. All right, good to see both of you, Gentlemen. So Paul, you first, any real surprises in this verdict and the speed in which it was rendered?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, I was not surprised. I mean, the jury deliberated for 14 hours in a case where essentially the defense had conceded that the defendant, Tsarnaev, had done all of the horrible acts with which he was charged.

So the only real issue was the death penalty appropriate. Was this the worst of the worst kinds of cases? And given the death of three people, over 200 seriously injured, the carnage involved, it didn't surprise me that the jury would reach the conclusion that if ever there was a death penalty case, this would be the one.

WHITFIELD: On the other hand, Paige, you do feel there was some surprise. You thought the defense did a fairly good job humanizing this young man and that perhaps they would impose life?

PAGE PATE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's what I thought. I do think the defense did a great job of humanizing him and showing that he was not the driving force behind this. Yes, he was involved, he was complicit. He killed people.

But he was acting under the influence of his brother, who I think was a much worse character. So they talked about his family, they talked about his age, and I think all of that could have swayed the jury.

WHITFIELD: So the jurors didn't buy it, but is it presumed that there will be an appeal? That he will appeal this death penalty? Even though no one can forget that he scrawled a message in that boat, the night that he was captured and he said he, he felt jealous for his brother that he found death and he was hoping that would be his fate, too. So why should he appeal the death penalty?

PATE: Well, he's going to appeal the death penalty because he has lawyers and that's what they do. So I anticipate you're going to see him appeal.

[11:35:00] And I think their best issue is going to be the fact that the case was tried in Boston literally in the crime scene, where the government made the allegation that the entire city was a victim of the crime so that is probably going to be the biggest issue that they raise on appeal.

WHITFIELD: So Paul, why was a change of venue argument unable to be made successfully? Why was this case, a federal case, why was it in Boston when people feel so emotional, these emotional ties to what happened, two years ago?

CALLAN: Well, you know, I have to agree with Page, I think it's a, a surprising decision that they didn't change venue. You know, it's so personally affected people in Boston. And Boston is kind of, you think as a big city, but it's really kind of a small city, it's only about 600,000 people.

Everybody knows somebody who was at that finish line that day. But on the other hand, the reason I have to disagree with Page about whether they'll have a chance on appeal. They took this up originally, before a three-judge panel, federal panel.

And that panel said no to the change of venue. Now they're going to be appealing to that same court again from this verdict. So and I also think that had this been a case where you were contesting guilt or innocence, in some kind of serious way, you could say the location of the trial made a difference.

But really on these facts, would it have made a difference if it was tried in Houston or Chicago or Los Angeles? You know, I suspect ironically that this was the friendliest jurisdiction for people who are opposed to the death penalty. So I think in the end it gets upheld.

WHITFIELD: Last word, Page?

PATE: Well, I mean, disagree with Paul on that point. I think by the time you got this jury, you know these are people that are pro-death penalty. You've already gotten rid of the people who are opposed to it and yes, it may not make a difference for factual guilt.

But for the Senate's, for death, I do think it's important and that's what they did with McVeigh. They moved it to a jurisdiction that was not where the crime occurred. That's the safest thing to do.

WHITFIELD: All right, Page Pate, Paul Callan, thanks so much, gentlemen. Appreciate it.

All right, when we come back, more on our breaking news, a U.S. special operations mission in Syria that left a key ISIS figure dead. We'll get insight from a former Navy SEAL and a former commanding general in the Army after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:53]

WHITFIELD: All right, more on our top story now, U.S. special operations forces kill a key ISIS figure during a raid in Eastern Syria. Here's what we know right now.

In a statement, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said, Abu Sayyaf, who was indeed in ISIL's military operations and help direct organization's financial operations, was killed in a raid. U.S. officials also tell CNN that Sayyaf was the equivalent of the ISIS chief financial officer.

U.S. officials also tell CNN that Sayyaf was a Tunisian citizen. The National Security Council said his wife was captured and is currently in military detention in Iraq.

A source tells CNN that Abu Sayaff may have been in contact with ISIS leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Let's talk more about this right now with CNN military analyst, Retired Lt. General Mark Hertling and former Navy SEAL, Jonathan Gilliam. Good to see both of you.

All right, so Mark, you first, Syria was not aware of this operation apparently. How did this happen without the coordination of that country?

LT. GENERAL MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, that's what special operators do, Fredricka. They sometimes will go after targets in countries that are not aware of their either entry or regress out of the country. It's part of the mystique of special operations forces and it's hitting targets very rapidly and part of the required professional aspect of all of this.

WHITFIELD: Jonathan, help us understand and even picture how it happens. We understand that a helicopter was involved and somehow the special ops forces are descended on this property and then what?

JONATHAN GILLIAM, FORMER NAVY SEAL: Well, whenever we go into an environment where you know we have little or no forces that are going to back us up in the immediate area. Over-watch is very important. I'm sure there was a lot of over-watch.

It appears from the reporting that they softened the target up quite a bit before they got in there by hitting it with either having an airplanes overhead or what have you.

However, they chose to do it, but once they get in there, these operations are pretty quick typically, and it sounds like in this case, they had some intelligence. They had something that they were going after specifically because they really wanted to get in there.

Whether or not it was this individual and his wife particular or if they were secondary, it seems as know they definitely were bent on going in there.

WHITFIELD: Mark, you know, high risk, you know, all the way around, we also understand that they have been some hand to hand fighting involved in the special forces with some ISIS's members and that this was very tight quarters.

HERTLING: Yes, first of all I would say the hand-to-hand comment that Barbara Starr made earlier that's unfortunate for ISIS. You never want to tangle with special operators in a hand-to-hand or a weapons environment.

But secondly, I'll comment too on what Jonathan said because there's -- we tend to focus primarily on either the SEALs or the Delta guys, the guys that are at the tip of the spear. There's a lot that goes into this, Fredricka, and I would suggest even though we're all waking up to this breaking news, this has probably been a target packet that's been put together for months, if not weeks.

With a lot of intelligence, a lot of overhead platforms, signals intelligence, a lot of resupply operations, overhead platforms to provide fire support. There's a lot that goes into these kinds of strategic missions.

And when you're talking about capturing or killing a key financier that's a pretty big target when you're looking at all the lines of operations that were actually executing, again, we as a government are executing against ISIS.

And then, Jonathan, as this team, the special ops for team, everyone has a role, correct? I mean, someone is assigned to actually gather the evidence that might be collected such as the phones and the computers.

Can you kind of paint a picture for to us give us an idea how these assignments are doled out or the different roles that any one of member of these forces would have?

GILLIAM: Well, you have to look at this, very similar to the way you would look at a law enforcement agency when they go in and do a big arrest, you know, you're going to have way before, as the general was saying, way before this goes down, these mission plans are thought out and everybody knows their role because they help to plan that part of the mission.

[11:45:13] So you know, you'll have in whether it be law enforcement or over in this part of the world when they are doing a takedown like this, you will have people that are already in position that know their job, their primary or secondary job is going to be to look for computers.

If somebody says, I've got something over here, they go over there. They try to get it. They try to now that they're on site exploitation is big deal now in the military.

Way more than it used to be because now the way that the FBI, the CIA, and all these units work together, the ability to go in and actually collect this information, is tremendously huge and the way we disseminate it is very fast.

WHITFIELD: OK, and then Mark, the staging area in Iraq. Explain the significance of the use of Iraq in an operation like this. HERTLING: Well, you have to have a basing area as Jonathan will tell you, you have to launch from somewhere. It could have been from Iraq. It could have been from somewhere else. I'm not suggesting that it was from Iraq. There are several countries in the area that may have helped.

They may have egressed into Iraq because there are some facilities in that country especially in the Kurdish region where they could have these targets.

But the intelligence you're going to gather from a mission like this, and truthfully, Fredricka, you know, as a commander in Northern Iraq a few years ago, we would run with our assigned special operations forces like this, multiple missions every night.

And the amount of training that these young men and sometimes now women go through in order to execute a mission of this strategic importance is incredible as Jonathan says.

It makes what a professional football team or sports team do, pale in significance in terms of the choreography, and the nuance, approaches and the missions assigned to each individual on the team. They deserve a lot of credit and they rehearse it quite a bit before going in.

WHITFIELD: OK, and then that doesn't underscore, this has been in the works for months. And so you know, Jonathan, while most people don't know the name Abu Sayaff, clearly the U.S. has had their eyes on this person for a very long time.

What would be the benefit of perhaps putting his name on some sort of you know, watch list for all to know or does that become a distraction and that perhaps explains why his name wasn't on the a list of the general public would know about?

GILLIAM: Well, you know, there's a couple of things I think that are very important to this mission and that any time you can hit a strategic leader, somebody who is actually in the leadership of this organization or any organization that you're at war with.

It really does send out a message that we're tracking these guys and we have the ability to come in and get them. In this case, going into Syria where we are not typically doing a lot of operations, and boldly taking this guy out in one of the most guarded areas that ISIS has, I think that sends a message up their chain of command that are just tremendous.

And regardless of what you know the information that actually ends up coming out of it. The message that we sent is a big message and I think, you know, a lot of times these strategic targets just taking them out and letting them know that we have our eye on you, is almost just as important a lot of times as the information that we get out of there.

WHITFIELD: So Mark, you agree the psychological hit?

HERTLING: I'm sorry?

WHITFIELD: Yes, Mark, you agree that there's kind of a psychological hit that comes with this --

HERTLING: Yes, absolutely and it's interesting to hear the folks talking about how we didn't know these individuals because as Jonathan will tell you, when you're talking about strikes, kinetic or non- kinetic strikes against these kinds of individuals, the target packages that are involved -- everyone likes to focus on the operator.

Those are the -- that's the key guy that are in the top 20 list of the top five list. But truthfully, Fredricka, the strategic level, you're also targeting the financiers, the lawyers that help them make decisions based on Sharia law. That's an important part of any kind of operation that ISIS is conducting.

They always have to have their operation blessed by a religious figure. You have other elements of the information ops guy. I would suggest all the people who say, I don't know who Abu Sayaff is. I would say OK, do you know who their chief information operations officer is, too?

Because that's as critically important because they are doing a lot of the recruiting efforts so all of these individuals are strategic targets. Across the various lines of operations and it's being executed at the strategic level, by joint special operations command, which the Delta and the SEALs are all a part of.

WHITFIELD: All right, very fascinating stuff. Jonathan Gilliam, Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, thanks to both of you, Gentlemen, appreciate it.

And of course, be sure to tune in to CNN tomorrow, 7:00 p.m. to see Fareed Zakaria's CNN's special "Blindsided, How ISIS Shook The World." We in the NEWSROOM will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY BOURDAIN, CNN HOST, "PARTS UNKNOWN": I asked (inaudible), who directed such fills as "pie," if you could go anywhere on earth, where would you like to go? He said, Madagascar. It's simple. The more you look, the harder you look the more complicated it gets, two different perspectives, one place, Madagascar.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: All right, to Egypt now, former President Mohammad Morsi, the country's first democratically elected leader, has been sentenced to death for his role in a 2011 prison break.

Let's bring in CNN correspondent, Ian Lee. So, Ian, Amnesty International is condemning this sentence?

IAN LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right. They've called it a charade, Fredricka. Heavily condemning the whole procedure, everything that had to do with this trial, despite that, though, Mohamed Morsi was sentenced to death.

[11:55:08] Today's trial really wasn't whether he was going to be found innocent or guilty, but really what would the sentence be. A lot of people assumed that he was going to be found guilty, and the death sentence not just to him but over 100 people.

A lot of those people, though, tried in absentia, but many of those include leading members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now this case will go to Egypt's leading legal scholar of Islamic law in Egypt. He'll go over all of the evidence, go over the case, and issue an opinion.

Then on June 2nd, that's when the same judge will determine whether to confirm this death sentence or not. But this is the harshest sentence we've seen for the former president. He was recently sentenced to 20 years in prison, but this isn't over yet. He does have two appeals after this verdict -- Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: OK, All right, Ian Lee, thank you so much. Keep us posted on that, that appellate process there from Cairo. Appreciate it. We'll have much more from the NEWSROOM right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WHITFIELD: Hello again, everyone. Thanks for joining me. I'm Fredricka Whitfield. We're learning brand-new details about a major separation against ISIS in Syria. The White House says U.S. special operation forces conducted a raid deep in Eastern Syria killing the key ISIS figure and capturing his wife.