Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Legal Victory for Trump's Travel Ban; Senate Bill Leaves 22 M Fewer Insured by 2026; Critical Battle Taking Place in Syria; Philippines War with ISIS Militants Comes at a High Cost; Harry Potter Turns 20. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired June 27, 2017 - 00:00   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:07] PAULA NEWTON, CNN ANCHOR: This is CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.

Ahead this hour --

Donald Trump's travel ban wins a legal victory now paving the way for some people to be blocked from entering the United States.

Trump's efforts to replace Obamacare suffer a political setback. Why some believe the Republicans' health care bill may already be on life support.

And later video filmed undercover inside the city ISIS claimed as its capital. What it shows us about life in Raqqa, Syria.

Hello and thanks for joining us. I'm Paula Newton.

This is NEWSROOM L.A., starts right now.

U.S. President Donald Trump calls it a victory for national security. Now the Supreme Court has decided to allow parts of this controversial travel to take effect. But legal analysts say enforcement could cause chaos at the nation's airports and borders, not to mention American embassies and consuls right around the world.

CNN's Jessica Schneider has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: In the unsigned opinion, the court sided with the government in part, temporarily barring entry for foreign nationals who are unable to make a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

STEVE VLADECK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's clear from today's decision that most of the justices think that the lower court decisions went a bit too far. And that at least parts of the travel ban should be allowed to go into effect.

SCHNEIDER: But for those with family, business or educational ties to the U.S. the executive order will remain on hold as long as those seeking a visa can prove a close familial relationship or connection to a business or educational entity that is formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, they may be considered for entry. People like students who have been accepted to universities or a worker with an offer at an American company.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The court seems to have thread a needle actually quite elegantly where they have dealt with the people who have the biggest hardships, the saddest stories, the people who have close relatives.

SCHNEIDER: Three conservative members on the court dissented in part saying the decision didn't go far enough and should have allowed the full travel ban to go into effect. Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the piece-meal approach may be unworkable writing, "Today's compromise will burden executive officials with the task of deciding on peril of contempt whether individuals from the six affected nations who wish to enter the United States have a sufficient connection to a person or entity in this country."

Justice Neil Gorsuch joined in that dissent as he starts to show his leanings as the newest member of the court. Gorsuch has already joined several times with Justice Thomas, the court's most conservative member, and agreed the full travel ban should go into effect.

VLADECK: That is a pretty strong vote, and it's a pretty strong show of support for the President by really his most important nominee to date.

SCHNEIDER: But this decision is only temporary. The court has not yet determined whether or not the ban is constitutional or whether it violates immigration law.

The full court said today it will hear those critical arguments in the fall. Lawyers for those who challenged the ban are focused on the bigger fight ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We'll be counting on the Supreme Court to affirm what the American people have made so clear. That there is no place in this country for any policy that attempts to discriminate or divide us based on how we pray, what we look like or where we come from.

SCHNEIDER: But for now, the Department of Homeland Security has declared it a win for the administration saying the Supreme Court's decision restores to the executive branch crucial and long-held constitutional authority to defend our national borders.

It was chaos at the nation's airports when the first travel ban took effect in January. Now the administration has 72 hours to issue directives and begin implementation of the portions of the travel ban that are allowed to proceed and clarify how travelers can go about proving that they have a bona fide connection to people and entities in this country.

One thing missing from this opinion, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on the President's words. The lower courts had focused extensively on President Trump's tweets and his statements about this travel ban. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will factor those words in when they hear the full arguments next term.

Jessica Schneider, CNN -- Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: Joining me now criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Troy Slaten and Omar Noureldin, he's vice president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Thank you both.

Troy -- first to you, this was really an unprecedented decision if you looked at the way they wrote it and it was a bit of an interim decision. Donald Trump took a victory lap today. Does he have a right to?

[00:04:59] TROY SLATEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. Both the administration and the states and entities that sued the administration can both claim victory here. The Supreme Court did what Jeffrey Toobin said as threaded the needle. They really split the baby, to think of it in Solomonic terms.

The Supreme Court said that parts of the executive order, the revised executive order, can go into effect. And the United States government can ban persons who have no bona fide connection to the United States.

What that means is that people outside of the U.S. who are not citizens and have no relation to anyone in the U.S. can be banned. But if they have a family member or a relationship with a company or a university then they can't be banned.

NEWTON: But Omar -- the two of you are lawyers, I am not. I see bona fide and I say to myself -- chaos. Is that what you're thinking is going to happen.

OMAR NOURELDIN, MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL: I'm not sure if chaos is what's going to happen but there is confusion. So it's going to be up to the discretion of the administration and the executives to decide what does a bona fide connection mean. There was some guidance by the court but in terms of how that's going to be implemented in the days and weeks ahead -- that's unclear especially for the refugees.

I was actually startled by the lack of clarity there and as I said not a decision that many people have seen before by any court, let alone the Supreme Court.

But Omar -- just before we move on to more of the legal ramifications, what have you been hearing? I mean is there again, a lot of that panic that we heard from many communities about this ban before?

NOURELDIN: Well, you know, each element of this saga is another piece of the psychological trauma that American Muslims are facing. And as we have new developments, it's another reinforcement that this is somehow a "us versus them" fight. There is isolation, psychological isolation amongst American Muslim community and many immigrant communities from the larger narrative that the administration is painting -- whether it's a border wall, whether it's deportation or this travel ban.

NEWTON: In terms of travel bans -- Donald Trump himself has called it that. Why did the court not really bring any of that into play this time around -- at least for now?

SLATEN: The court said that it's weighing two very important interests. One is the government's stated interest in providing for the national security of the United States. The interest that the U.S. has in trying to keep out people that would do us harm. And weighing that against the right of people to travel and enjoy the freedoms that we enjoy here.

The court is not concerned about any alleged psychological damage but really doing a balancing act and trying to on the one hand provide for the national security of the United States and the interest of people who are already here who have people outside the United States who want to get in and already have connection.

NEWTON: But Omar -- are you worried about the precedent here? I mean we had a court really overrule other lower courts that said the President doesn't have the right to do this. The Supreme Court has come in and said -- no, no, the President does have a right to do this.

NOURELDIN: Well, I just want to take issue with this being, you know, considered a victory for Trump. What you actually had was a 6-3 decision in which six of the justices decided not to allow the entire injunction to be lifted by the lower courts. So the three, which was Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch, wanted the entire injunctions to be lifted and the ban to go into full effect -- that didn't happen. So this really isn't a clear victory for the Trump administration.

NEWTON: Go ahead -- Troy.

SLATEN: Yes, I disagree with that a bit.

This was a per curiam opinion -- that means "of the court". All nine justices agreed on the parts that were -- of the lower courts that were lifted, the three judges that Omar mentioned just said that they wished that the court went further.

NEWTON: And Omar -- doesn't that just lead Donald Trump and the reason that he's taking the victory lap today is to say look, I'm the executive in charge here. This is the executive branch. This is about national security. It may seem harsh, but I want to make sure I can scrutinize people coming into this country the way my government sees fit.

NOURELDIN: Yes. And this is what makes this a hard case. You know, usually the executive is given a lot of deference on issues of national security. But in this case, the lower courts, district courts and the circuit courts disagreed. They looked beyond the national security kind of shield that the executive has because of the discriminatory intent that the courts inferred. NEWTON: But does that worry you -- Omar? Because that means that a

lot of the allegations that the Trump administration was leveling at these courts, the fact that they were too political, it makes it seem as if it's right. Because when you've got the Supreme Court weighing this does that not worry you and the advocacy work that you do?

NOURELDIN: It is worrying. I mean there's still a lot of work to do. But the court hasn't made a decision yet and so the advocates on both sides of this issue are going to have their full day in court come the fall term.

[00:10:00] NEWTON: And Troy -- I want to look forward. When we look forward to what they may decide in the fall. It's a bit confusing because some people have even put on the table -- look, the Supreme Court may just decide not to hear this at all. They don't have to hear it. Why is that?

SLATEN: Well, they say that the Supreme Court isn't final because they're right. They're right because they're final. The Supreme court has the final say and when we have an issue of such national importance, when we have lower courts coming to different conclusions for different reasons -- that's why we have a Supreme Court, to work out these differences and to give finality to this very important issue.

NEWTON: Omar -- how do you think the next few weeks will look in the United States in terms of people from those six countries trying enter even if they do have that what's being called a bona fide link?

NOURELDIN: I think that's unclear at this point. The examples that have been given -- people that have family members that have been accepted to universities that have jobs here -- they're going to be allowed in under the bona fide connections test, if you will.

So I don't think there's going to be that same kind of chaos we witnessed when the first ban went into effect at all and even when the revised ban went into effect. But there may be instances here and there that maybe litigated where someone's trying to get in and says they have a bona fide connection but the administration doesn't believe they do.

NEWTON: That's certainly a quite chilling effect for family who are waiting for loved ones to come in from those countries.

Thank you very much, both of you as we continue to follow what was really an extraordinary ruling from the Supreme Court. Appreciate it.

And joining me now from Honolulu, Hawaii is Attorney General Douglas Chin. Your name was certainly in the news when you challenged this. In fact you challenged it on the basis that it violated federal immigration law and of course that it violated the first amendment in terms of -- the prohibition of the government banning people based on their religion.

Are you seeing this as a defeat today? And if not, why not? DOUGLAS CHIN, HAWAII ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I mean I think it's exactly what the Supreme Court put out which is a compromise frankly. I mean in other words, it sounded like some justice would have been happier if they could have just allowed the travel ban to go into effect. The other justices were saying, well, hold on -- before we just let the travel ban go into effect, we're going to keep it in effect for now for people who have a bona fide connection to the U.S. as your other commentators have mentioned.

And so for us, we have our individual plaintiff Dr. Al Shiq (ph) who lives here in Hawaii and well as many people who are planning to attend the University of Hawaii or teach at the university this fall. And for those people they have an assurance now that they're going to be able to come in to the country and not be bothered by this travel ban.

NEWTON: Justice, it sounds like you're agreeing with the President. This is fine. You can have part of his ban and you can have in the people that you want to have into the country.

CHIN: Well, I think it's good for those guys, you know. I think it would be appropriate for me to say that I think what we also want is we also want to make sure that whatever the President does isn't just something that is unreviewed or unchecked when it comes to the Constitution or immigration laws.

And I think one of the things that we could see from the decision is that they did say we're going to hold off on the merits until October.

NEWTON: And when you say hold off on the merits in October so if we look forward to this are you hoping for a more robust decision there where a lot of the elements that were not brought in to this, specifically about whether or not this was a Muslim ban are looked at?

CHIN: Absolutely. And I think the reason why is because what we see is we see a decision that came from the fourth circuit out on the East Coast as well as from the ninth circuit, both with two separate arguments. So one is the constitutional argument -- that's the one that brings in the President's tweets whether if he was a candidate or whether he was the President. You have all of those arguments swirling out there.

And then you have the other one from the West Coast in the ninth circuit saying that the President really didn't even have enough information, not enough of a basis to be able to justify banning 180 million people from the six Muslim majority countries simply because of their nation of origin.

So we do expect that, you know, the justices are going to be looking at this. They're nine very smart people as you can even see from the decision that came out today.

NEWTON: Well, some people would say they actually confused things a little bit today. Do you have confirmed about the issue -- well, that the issue of bona fide? I mean if you look at the ruling itself and I'm sitting -- one of those very difficult conflicts to work in right now. How do I decide what is bona fide and what isn't?

CHIN: Right. You know, I think some of it is going to have to depend on the situations that come up. And I can see how things could be a little bit murky over the next several weeks.

[00:14:58] But I think what you do have is you have the Supreme Court trying to give some direction, you know, whether it's enough direction for everyone, that remains to be seen. But certainly for people who have close family relationships, and that would include our Dr. Al- Shiq and his mother-in-law, as somebody who the Supreme Court says clearly meet that standard as well as students who are trying to go to the university or similarly situated students as well as employers who have employees or similarly situated employers or other entities, there's definitely a hook to be able to allow these people to come into the country.

NEWTON: Do you worry that you've given the President some ammunition for people to agree with him that both you and lower courts were just afar too political? That you didn't look at this travel ban for what he says it was which was trying -- a national security measure to try and keep and the country safe?

CHIN: Right. You know, I mean I think that's rich for the President to be calling our side political. I mean to me, it's -- I guess the approach I've always felt from the very beginning is that we are talking about the constitution and the checks and balances that have existed from the very beginning of this country. And that is that we're a country that's based upon not discriminating against people based upon their religion, or based upon their nation of origin.

We've gone so far into the 21st century and so really what the President is suggesting by saying this is just politics, that's something -- I can't agree with that.

NEWTON: And now, again, the Supreme Court likely to weigh in again in the fall. We'll wait to hear their pronouncement.

Justice Chin -- always good to have you here, appreciate it.

CHIN: Thank you so much.

NEWTON: The U.S. Senate health care bill could be in big trouble. I know -- surprise, surprise. But next why some 22 million people may be worst off under that Republican plan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: The U.S. Senate health care bill could be in trouble. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the plan would leave 22 million more people uninsured by 2026 than under Obamacare. Now, right now, it appears there are not enough votes to even begin Senate debate on this bill this week, and that's a problem.

Scott McLean has more.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: CBO's report today makes clear that this bill is every bit as mean as the House bill.

SCOTT MCLEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: 22 million -- that's how many more Americans would be without health insurance by 2026 if the proposed Senate GOP health care passes according to the Congressional Budget Office. Like the House version of the bill that passed in May, this version would end enhanced Medicaid expansion, eliminate coverage mandates and allow insurers to charge older people more. And wore premiums would be down about 20 percent over the next 10 years for the average customer, those in the individual market would be hit with dramatic increases for services.

[00:20:04] Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is scrambling to shore up votes for the bill, but these new numbers may not help.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Obviously it's not good news and so it'll have to be a factor. But the important factor is my state is a Medicare expansion state and so we have a lot of issues right now. The governor's initial impression of this that it's not helpful to his state.

MCLEAN: Senate Republicans unveiled their version of the Obamacare last Thursday to an underwhelming response by many in their own party.

SEN. DEAN HELLER (R), NEVADA: This bill, this bill is currently in front of the United States Senate is not the answer. It's simply not the answer. And I'm announcing today that in this form I will not support it.

MCLEAN: Only two Republican senators can vote against the bill in order for it to still pass and as of Monday afternoon, at least five are opposing it.

In Washington -- I'm Scott McLean.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NEWTON: Joining me now, political analyst Michael Genovese. He is also the president of the Global Policy Institute at Loyola Marymount University. Thanks so much for joining us.

I mean we kind of have to take a deep breath on a news day like today. And there was so much in the news that was both political but also substantive in a policy sense.

If we start first with health care. It looks like that, as everyone said, even after seven years, the Republicans are saying, not yet. We need more time.

MICHAEL GENOVESE, GLOBAL POLICY INSTITUTE: Well, you know, this was a big test for Donald Trump. It was the signature issue of the Republicans going into the campaign. They voted against Obamacare 50 some odd times while Obama was president. And if they can't get this done they're in trouble. So for the President, the problem is he doesn't have enough leverage. He ran behind almost every member of the House and Senate in their own districts. And so he can't go to them and say, you need me to get re- elected. They can go to him and say, no, we pulled you in.

And so the leverage that most presidents have and promise that if you support me I can bring votes in -- Obama had a little bit of it, Trump has very little of it. And so how does he bargain? How does he negotiate? What does he offer? He doesn't have a lot to offer right now.

NEWTON: Not only does he not have a lot to offer but he is running against what is a CBO, the budget office that is saying, look this is the way the numbers add up.

I want to go to a tweet that he said, "Fact: when Obamacare was signed CBO, Congressional Budget Office, estimated that 23 million would be covered in 2017. They were off --

GENOVESE: He's nasty (ph).

NEWTON: -- by 100 percent. But only 10.3 million people were covered."

What is interesting and we should add that Trump's own budget director claims that that Congressional Budget Office is partisan -- which even conservatives come out and said what are you saying? This is an arbiter of policy.

What I'm trying to get at here is t every turn, the Trump administration seems to be undermining government, period.

GENOVESE: Well, that's kind of their mode of operation. They're concerned about what they call the deep and they think the intelligence agencies are out to get them; the Democrats who probably are out to get them. But he sees enemies at every turn. And I'm not trying to say he's paranoid but he seems very suspicious.

He doesn't have that sense of deep politics that someone who's been in there for 30 years has who can go back and forth and argue. When he argues, he takes it very personally. If you throw something at him, he will turn it right back and throw it at you.

So whenever Trump is confronted by something, he goes on the attack which is not a very good negotiating tool.

NEWTON: Ok. But Michael we keep saying it's not a good negotiating tool. Look, he's just had a really big victory in the Supreme Court. If this health bill fails, some people would say who cares. He didn't leverage a lot on it. He didn't stake a lot of his own capital on it. So in a sense, with his base and perhaps more, what he's doing is working.

GENOVESE: Well, his base is going to be with for a long time. But you can't govern with one-third of the population. And to say that, you know, well he didn't stake his presidency on it -- that was a big issue in the campaign. It was a big Republican issue. They have control of the House and the Senate and the White House. If they can't get this done, then they will appear to be at least to many people, inept, incapable of getting the simplest thing that they promised all along to get done.

NEWTON: And in the middle of all this we have these continued leaks, this continued investigation. I want to pick up on something that you said that was interesting. You try and use something against -- you try and use something against Trump, any mud that's flung at him, he picks it up and throws it right back at you.

Case in point, a Trump tweet, you know, talking about in fact -- the fact that, you know, this whole issue of a collusion and obstruction. He's now turning it around on Barack Obama and the Democrats and saying that in fact, by not doing more with all of that Russia investigation before the election, starting in the summer of 2016 that they were the ones.

[00:25:05] He says that Obama -- he didn't -- in the tweet he says he didn't choke. He colluded or obstructed, and it did the Dems and crooked Hillary no good. There are the words -- colluded or obstructed -- the same words that the Democrats have been using against Donald Trump for so many months now.

What do you think the impact of that will be? Not just on his base but if we're looking at, you know, Americans at large.

GENOVESE: Well, you know, when you were four years old in the playground someone called you a name. You say, no I'm not, you are. And that's what Donald Trump does. He needs to get past this because it keeps him in the background when he needs to be at the center of the argument. And the argument is about substantive issues.

This is a nice distraction. He likes to attack President Obama and heaven knows President Obama dropped the ball on this. There's no question about that. President Obama's response was tepid and hesitant and he wasn't looking out for out for our national interest.

But on the Russia thing, if you look at President Trump now, he's been in denial for most of his presidency, and instead of going after the Russian's he's become the cheerleader for Vladimir Putin. And so I think Donald Trump has a problem with -- there's no core to him. He'll respond to issues, go on the attack and gets easily distracted if someone throws mud, that's where he puts his attention.

NEWTON: It's interesting though in terms of what you say because at the end of the day, his supporters, his base is sticking with him. It will be really interesting to see some of those swing states as those races come up again in 2018 just kind of where voters are sitting on all that.

GENOVESE: And if the Obamacare repeal takes place. A lot of people in those states are going to suffer -- right. That's going to be the test to see if his base stays with him.

NEWTON: Yes. A lot on the line in the next few weeks. Michael -- thanks so much. We really appreciate it.

GENOVESE: Thank you.

NEWTON: Next on NEWSROOM L.A. an exclusive glimpse of the frontline in the battle against ISIS. Undercover footage from inside the Syrian city of Raqqa. You don't want to miss this.

And just ahead a look at the high cost of the Philippines new war with ISIS militants on the country's home court.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEWTON: Hello. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles.

I'm Paula Newton and these are your headlines this hour.

The U.S. Supreme Court will allow parts of President Trump's travel ban. The justices will hear the full case this fall but for now, the ban will take effect for foreign nationals who lack any quote, "bona fide" relationship with any person or entity in the United States.

[00:29:57] A new report could hurt efforts to pass the health care bill in the U.S. Senate. The Congressional Budget Office says the proposed legislation would leave 22 million more people uninsured by 2026 than under Obamacare.

Now right now it appears there are not enough votes to even begin Senate debate on the bill this week.

Brazilian President Michel Temer has been formally charged with corruption. It's the first time a sitting president has faced criminal charges in Brazil. The case has to pass Congress with a two- thirds majority before a trial can be held. Mr. Temer is accused of accepting bribes. He denies the allegations.

The White House believes a new chemical attack in Syria could be coming soon. It says the United States has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians including innocent children.

The U.S. says it's seen activities similar to those made before the gas attack in April, which killed dozens of people. The White House warns President Assad and his military will pay a heavy price for another attack. The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. says Russia and Iran will be blamed as well.

Meantime, there's a critical battle taking place in Syria. We have been covering this for many months here, but it is in the very heart of the city ISIS calls its capital.

CNN has exclusively obtained undercover video from Raqqah where U.S.- led forces are making new gains against the terror group.

Nick Paton Walsh has the extraordinary footage and what it means. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is what a reign of terror looks like when it's in collapse. The traffic is normal. So is the market. But you can tell ISIS are losing here on the streets of Raqqah, the capital of their fast-shrinking caliphate from one thing. It's actually pretty easy to film them in secret.

Using a hidden body camera could be a death sentence for this activist, but in these besieged streets lined with sandbags, encircled by American-backed Syrian fighters, they just don't fear ISIS anymore.

So even this foreign fighter, Abu Aysha (ph) from Belgium is a target as he makes a front-line fashion choice. And elsewhere, two Russian- speaking fighters appear to discuss air strikes.

Here, Abu Lukman (ph), the Egyptian looks with his military police for a Tunisian man, Abu Mariam (ph), but don't find him.

Streets are covered with canopies meant to shelter ISIS fighters from prying coalition drones above. But despite the war, the market's brimming and even the wounded hobbling around.

Under siege, why is there so much food? Well, it's shipped in from nearby regime-held areas, we're told. Commerce alive and well in the caliphate. This shop even seems to offer to change dollars. Sandbags give shelter from air strikes but also defensive positions when street to street fighting reaches here. But some locals have already made this hostile terrain.

One activist from the group (INAUDIBLE) telling us how he pinned night letters, death threats, to the doors of ISIS informants.

"We could only get to them," he says, "by leaving messages on their door, like we know who you are. This soon stopped them."

"And some of our friends started writing the word "free" on the walls of ISIS buildings. Then locals started. The elderly writing it on walls and children on chalk boards, making ISIS wonder who are these people?"

It's getting ugly for ISIS here. They've moved their prisoners out. Top commanders have fled. Their lieutenants only drive around in low- profile, normal cars. Their enemy is literally at the gates. ISIS' world vanishing fast, and this may be among the last times we glimpse into their warped way of life.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Erbil, Northern Iraq.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Now, what we see there is chilling in the sense that ISIS has been able to actually take over territory.

In Asia in the meantime, they are trying to fight ISIS from taking over more territory. Philippine troops are right now battling with ISIS-linked militants to recapture a city partly taken by the militants more than a month ago now.

And you can see after what we've seen for years in Syria why this is so serious.

The deadly siege has come at a high cost, though, with at least 66 soldiers killed and scores more wounded. Hundreds of thousands of people have also been displaced.

I want to underscore hundreds of thousands.

Our Ivan Watson is in Hong Kong with the details.

And, you know, Ivan, we've been following your reporting from the Philippines, and one thing that I didn't realize was the scope of this battle.

IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. What you've seen for the very first time in the Philippines, a country that has been plagued by insurgencies for decades is a coalition of a group of longstanding Islamism insurgent groups for the very first time under the black banner of ISIS.

And the fears are is that this could serve as a magnet much further abroad throughout the region. Instead of having a run to Iraq and Syria to go join ISIS and join the so-called caliphate, they could perhaps do it in places like the Philippines, where there have traditionally been regions out of control of the Philippines military.

I have to update unfortunately the statistics as of Saturday. At least 70 government forces were killed.

And, Paula, this is clearly the longest and deadliest urban battle the national military has faced in the Philippines in decades.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WATSON (voice-over): The ambulances arrive in a torrential downpour. Unloading the most recent casualties from the Philippines' month-long fight against ISIS militants hold up in the besieged city of Marawi.

(on-camera): In almost four weeks of fighting, this hospital has treated some 340 casualties and more wounded soldiers keep coming every day.

(voice-over): Among those treating the wounded, Lieutenant Colonel Jonna Dalaguit, who runs this military hospital. She's been an army doctor for 20 years.

(on-camera): Have you ever seen casualties on a scale like this before?

LT. COL. JONNA DALAGUIT, CAMP EVANGELISTA HOSPITAL: No, it's the first time. It's the first time that I've seen this huge number of casualties.

WATSON (voice-over): Among the wounded, this sergeant who we've been asked not to identify.

Sprayed with shrapnel from a mortar round, he gets help from his 65- year-old mother Teresita.

(on-camera): What do you think about ISIS right now?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hate them.

WATSON: You hate them?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I hate them.

WATSON (voice-over): The sergeant is a 17-year veteran of many other counterinsurgency operations, but he tells me the ISIS militants entrenched in Marawi includes skilled foreign fighters ready to die in battle.

The military says they've rescued hundreds of civilians from the war zone. But in their struggle to save the city, they've also been bombing the city.

In a recent visit to the region, Philippines' President Rodrigo Duterte apologized for the extreme measures.

RODRIGO DUTERTE, PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES: You will find in your heart to forgive my soldiers and government and me for declaring martial law. I have no choice. They are destroying Marawi. I have to drive them out, but I am very sorry.

WATSON: The government is struggling to cope with the many people now suddenly made homeless.

(on-camera): This is what happens when the conflict comes to this corner of the Philippines.

More than 200 families, more than 1,000 civilians, packed into this school gymnasium, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

(voice-over): In fact, more than 340,000 people have fled their homes in the last month. Among them, Tarhata Musari (ph) and her infant son.

(on-camera): What's your baby's name?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Martial Law.

WATSON: You named your child Martial Law?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

WATSON (voice-over): She gave birth in Marawi on May 23rd, the day ISIS invaded the city, amid explosions and gunfire. Just one hour later, they fled on foot. The baby may be safe, but Musari (ph) lost her father in the panic. She says she has not seen him since.

(END VIDEOTAPE) WATSON: Now, Paula, this month of fighting in Marawi has served as a bit of an international wake-up call to the perceived growing Jihadi threat in Southeast Asia.

In recent weeks, you've had the governments of the Philippines and nearby Indonesia and Malaysia announcing joint counter-terror Naval patrols since the militants have a long history of smuggling weapons, money, fighters in the archipelago of island between these three nations.

The U.S. is providing Special Forces in the background with logistical support to the Philippines military. Weapons and ammunition as well. And Australia has announced it's going to send two reconnaissance planes to help with this effort to finally clean out the city of these ISIS militants.

Paula?

HANCOCKS: Yes, it's an extraordinary report, and thank you for bringing it to us.

340,000 people already displaced.

Ivan, thank you. I know you'll continue to keep us up to date on that story. Appreciate it.

And stay with us. We'll be right back with more news in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:42:06] HANCOCKS: A legendary artist and a stunning demand.

The court in Spain says the remains of Salvador Dali should be dug up to help settle a paternity suit. The court has been looking at a case filed by a woman claiming to be the painter's daughter.

Now she says her mother had an affair with the artist in the 1950s. The Salvador Dali Foundation says it will fight the court order allowing for the body to be exhumed.

Now for the past two decades, Hogwarts and Harry Potter have been transporting readers of all ages to a world of magic. Now, the first book in the "Harry Potter" series is celebrating its -- wait for it -- 20th anniversary.

It tells J.K. Rowling's tale of a young wizard first raised by Muggles before finding its place at Hogwarts. Potter quickly gained a cult following, yes, among my children as well, and over the years, the eight Potter novels that I have read and reread have sold almost a half billion copies and been turned into a film franchise. And I will say much more than that.

You are watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. I'm Paula Newton. "World Sport" starts after the break. And I'll be back at the top of the hour with more from news around the world.

You're with CNN, the world's news leader.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WORLD SPORT