Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Three Americans Held Captive in North Korea Interviewed; Russia Accused of Invading Ukraine; Interview with Sen. Robert Menendez; British PM to Outline New Anti-Terror Measures Today

Aired September 01, 2014 - 07:00   ET

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

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Three Americans are being held captive in North Korea. CNN's Will Ripley is in North Korea and he got a rare and exclusive interview with all three in Pyongyang, including Kenneth Bae. Here is the missionary detained in 2012.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So how are these three men doing this morning? Do they have hopes the United States might work to secure their freedom? We're going to start with Kenneth Bae who has been held and subjected to hard labor for nearly two years.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WILL RIPLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tell me about your conditions?

KENNETH BAE, AMERICAN HELD CAPTIVE IN NORTH KOREA: Yes. I'm serving a 15-year sentence right now. And I've been going back and forth from hospital to the labor camp for the last year and a half. And right now I'm serving at the labor camp right now.

RIPLEY: Can you tell me about the conditions at the labor camp?

BAE: Conditions in labor camp is I'm working eight hours a day, six days a week, and working agricultural work to other hard labor that is required to do every day.

RIPLEY: Can you tell me what you did? Did you know at that time that you were breaking the law here in North Korea?

BAE: I had suspicions, but I did not quite agree with the charges until I got here. So -- and after being trial for that period of time did, I realize that what I had done has offended and has violated their law. But at the time I wasn't quite sure it was quite serious as they're charging me now.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: And two other Americans are also being held, Matthew Miller and Jeffrey Fowle. We'll hear next from Matthew Miller, who is facing trial that could get him locked up for years.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RIPLEY: First of all, can you tell me about the charges you're facing in North Korea?

MATTHEW MILLER, AMERICAN HELD CAPTIVE IN NORTH KOREA: I will not find out until I go to trial, but I will say that I prepared to violate the law of the DPRK before coming here, and I deliberately committed my crime.

RIPLEY: Tell me about your conditions here, how you're being treated.

MILLER: I'm in good health. I've received medical checks and provided with humanitarian treatment.

RIPLEY: And what is your message to your family?

MILLER: First, I'll just say my message to my government. I've been requesting help for a long time, and there has been no movement from my government. The American government is known for having a strong policy of protecting its citizens, yet for my case there is still no movement.

RIPLEY: What's the bottom line about your situation here and your message that you want to put out?

MILLER: That my situation is very urgent, that very soon I'm going to trial and I will directly be sent to prison. I think this interview is my final chance to push the American government into helping me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BERMAN: All right, that was Jeffrey Miller. Now, Jeffrey Fowle is suspected of leaving a bible behind in one of his hotels or possible in a club he'd been at. He has been accused of spreading a religious message against the North, but says he did nothing deliberate of the sort.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RIPLEY: How are you being treated here?

JEFFREY FOWLE, AMERICAN HELD CAPTIVE IN NORTH KOREA: Reasonably well. Food has been good. I get daily walk with the guys. Even medical care has been furnished a couple of times. And quarters are good. We have hotel suite type of room. I don't have any complaint about the treatment, very good so far. I hope and pray it continues whether I'm here two more days or two more decades, whatever the case is.

RIPLEY: Your message to your family?

FOWLE: The message is I'll come home as soon as I can. My family is the biggest thing on my mind right now. I have a wife and three young school kids who depend on me for support.

RIPLEY: So the bottom line, your message about your conditions and situation?

FOWLE: I'm good for the time being, but I need to let people know I'm getting desperate. I'm getting desperate for help. I understand there are three Americans in detention now here in the DPRK which I think is the most since the Pueblo incident.

RIPLEY: You have no communication with the other?

FOWLE: No. I know the name of the third guy. I know Kenneth Bae has been here the longest. I'm sure he's desperate to get back. This is an opportunity for maybe Bill Clinton to come back. And he helped with the release of a couple journalists. Maybe George Bush, his turn as an elder statesman, I'd appreciate any help they can lend to helping resolve our cases and bring us home.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: We spoke to CNN's Will Ripley live from Pyongyang earlier this morning. This is what he had to say about the circumstances behind these interviews.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RIPLEY: We were in the middle of a government-approved tour and we were whisked to an area where we weren't told where we were going or who we would be talking to. We were told it might be a government official. And then just before we entered the building where the Americans were being held, we were told that in fact we would be speaking with the detained Americans. We put in a request when we arrived in Pyongyang five days ago.

This is an indication, and the fact that the North Korean government has granted these interviews to CNN and is making these men available to pass along a message not only to their families but to the U.S. government, it may be a sign that North Korea is hoping -- in fact, it's not a sign. We know from talking to officials here, North Korea is hoping to open up a line of communication with the United States. They have an important relationship with China that has seen some tension as of late. Obviously United States sanctions hurt the economy here very much. So this country is very keen to have a dialogue with the United States. These three men may be an opportunity to bring a diplomat over here for the North Korean government and open up a channel of discussion. We'll have to see what unfolds from here.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CAMEROTA: We'll have much more on Will Ripley's exclusive later in the program.

But now to Ukraine where fighting rages on this morning. Ukrainian forces pulling back from fighting at the airport in Luhansk. And two crew members are missing after a Ukrainian navy boat was sunk. All of this comes as Russia claims it has no troops in Ukraine despite satellite photos that appear to show troops crossing the border. Is it time for the U.S. to arm the Ukrainians. One U.S. senator is joining the force of "Yes" votes to that question. Joining us now is Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Robert Menendez who is in Ukraine this morning. Good morning, senator, thanks so much for being here.

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ, (D) NEW JERSEY: Good morning, Alisyn, good to be with you.

CAMEROTA: You are in Kiev. What's your assessment of what's going on the ground?

MENENDEZ: Well, this is a watershed moment. Thousands of Russian troops with tanks, heavy artillery, surface-to-surface missiles and a whole host of other armaments have crossed into Ukraine. This is no longer about rebels fighting with Russian assistance. This is clearly an invasion of Ukraine.

And it seems to me that we have seen the international order upended by Russia, and we need to send a very clear message that you cannot invade a country, take territory by force, as a new international norm. That has to be punished. And that's why I hope --

CAMEROTA: So what exactly are you recommending that the U.S. do?

MENENDEZ: Well, that's why I hope that at this upcoming NATO summit that, number one is that we will have, while working with the European Union, the widest, deepest set of sanctions possible against Russia beyond what we've done in the financial, economic, and/or defense areas that will cost a heavy consequence to the Russian economy.

And secondly I believe we need to send defensive weapons to the Ukrainians for them to be able to fight for their own freedom. And if we do that, that will I believe possibly change the calculation of Putin, who has driven the decisions that have taken place here to date.

CAMEROTA: Let me play for you what President Obama has said about sanctions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that the sanctions that we've already applied have been effective. Our intelligence shows the Russians know they have been effective even though it may not appear on Russian television. And I think there are ways for us to deepen or expand the scope of some of that work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: OK, so he says the sanction haves already been effective, that he believes that Russia knows that they're effective, and that we could broaden the scope. Do you think that they've already been effective?

MENENDEZ: I think what the president is saying that to the extent we have levied sanctions against individuals and companies, that the effect of those sanctions is beginning to take place, and, yes, we are moving forward in a multilateral context to be effective.

Now the question is the second part of what he said, that broadening those sanctions so that there is deeper pain, more economic consequence to Putin as part of his calculation for the aggression he has exhibited here in Ukraine, which in my mind is a war against Europe fought on Ukrainian soil, has to be more significant. We have to have a heavy price for Russia to pay in order to deter any further actions that they are taking here in eastern Ukraine.

CAMEROTA: Do you think the president will go along with your suggestion to arm the Ukrainians?

MENENDEZ: I think that's on the table by advisers to the president. I think it's part of his thinking process about what more do we do. As I travel through eastern Europe, Estonia, Poland, and these Baltic countries, there is a real concern that if this fight in Ukraine doesn't turn out the right way, there are consequences far beyond.

There are also consequences far beyond for us in terms of trying to establish the international order, you know, whether China in the South China Sea, North Korea and its ambitions. Iran is we're negotiating, trying to stop the nuclear program. They will look at the wet and say, how far will the west go in the face of such aggression, because if they think we won't pass the most significant sanctions and provide the weapons necessary for the Ukrainians to defend themselves, then they'll calculate accordingly and make their decisions. And this is a moment in which weakness invites more provocation from Putin where strength can actually avoid further provocation from Putin.

CAMEROTA: Not surprisingly, senator, the Russian foreign minister sees things differently than you do. He says, quote, "Washington and Brussels needs to ask Kiev authorities to shop shelling the houses, schools, hospitals, and so on, because you leave militia with no choice but to stand up and protect their people." He's basically saying that some of these border towns are under attack by Kiev and are just defending themselves. What's your response?

MENENDEZ: That's pretty outrageous. Truth is not an obstacle to Russian propaganda. The reality is that Russians deny they went into Crimea, and then they annexed Crimea. Russians denied they were giving assistance to the rebels, and they gave them some of the most sophisticated weaponry that ultimately brought down the Malaysian Airline flight and killed hundreds of people, and then denied their assistance to the separatists.

Now they deny they even have troops inside of Ukraine when they have thousands of troops, tanks, armored vehicles, surface-to-surface missiles, where there are some video indications that the Ukrainian ship that was sunk may well have been sunk by a Russian flight. Look, I just find it outrageous. The only reason that the Ukrainian government fought is because the Russians were in the midst of arming separatists against the Ukrainian state. They would not accept that in Russia and neither would anyone else.

CAMEROTA: Senator Bob Menendez, please let us know what comes from the meetings today. We appreciate seeing you this morning.

MENENDEZ: Will do. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: Let's go over to Michaela for top headlines. MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Alisyn, thanks so much.

It's 12 minutes past the hour. Here we go. In Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrators plan to stop traffic on a major interstate in a show of civil disobedience following the Michael Brown shooting. Organizers are urging protesters to drive on interstate at 4:30 this afternoon, turn on their hazard lights, and stop their cars for four and a half minutes. They say it will symbolize the four hours Michael Brown's body lay in the middle of the street.

A small plane crashed north of Denver Sunday killing all five on board. The single engine plane crashed in a field as it approached Erie municipal airport for landings. Three passengers were declared dead at the scene. The remaining two passengers died after being taken to local hospitals. The NTSB is investigating the cause of that crash.

Police in Utah had a tough search for a stolen ring. Brian Ford and Christina Schlegel were arrested after a high-speed chase. Police say Ford apparently stole the ring from the Zales Jewelry Store Friday. That's an x-ray of Schlegel's stomach. Police said Sunday they're waiting still to recover it. You can sort of put that all together.

CAMEROTA: That's a good trick. No ring on me.

PEREIRA: Not so much.

BERMAN: Not so much.

PEREIRA: So much for your life of crime, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Despite mounting concerns about ISIS, the United States has not moved to raise the terror threat level. Is this a good move or just delaying the inevitable? We'll ask the experts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: British prime minister David Cameron set to speak before the British parliament today. He is expected to outline new anti-terror measures. This after raising Britain's threat level following the surge of activity by ISIS. Cameron's response appears to be vastly different so far from that of the Obama administration. Last week, the president said he had no defined strategy yet for dealing with ISIS in Syria.

So why the stark contrast in the responses between the president and the prime minister? Here to break this down, Tom Fuentes, CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI assistant director, and Patrick Skinner, former CIA case officer and director of special projects for the Soufan Group.

Tom, I want to start with you here. I want you to explain to people what are the specific environmental threats facing Britain right now. How does Britain see things differently than the United States, Tom?

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, John, they see it differently because it is different for them. United States has maybe 100 people or slightly more that have traveled to join ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and some of them have, thankfully, I guess you could almost say, made that a one-way trip. So that reduces the fact that they're going to come back here and attack us at home.

But for Britain, they have more than 500 of their citizens that they know of that have traveled there. They don't have the resources that we have. In the past when I worked with MI-5, they said that they'd be lucky if they had enough resources to cover 20 or 30 small groups of terrorists. And we saw an example of that in July of 2005 when they had looked at the group and then didn't have the ability to keep them covered that carried out the bombings in London in the subway train and buses.

So they face a greater threat with fewer resources. And I think for them that is a reason for caution.

BERMAN: And, Patrick, you agree their problem is not our problem? Just because Britain is raising the threat level, do you think there's a reason the United States should be, too?

PATRICK SKINNER, FORMER CIA CASE OFFICER: No, I think you have to have something more specific in regards to America to raise it. Otherwise -- I mean, if we just raised it because there are people that want to do something bad to us, we would always be at high alert.

I agree, Britain has a significant problem, and it's much, much worse than ours. It's kind of a compliment -- or testament of how inclusive our society is, that we have 350 million people and we have 100 people maybe, maybe more, that go and maybe a couple dozen go to ISIS. Britain has a much more significant radical problem.

BERMAN: And, Tom, the words were alarming from the British prime minister on Friday. He said, "What we're facing now in Iraq with ISIL is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before."

Look, we know Britain has faced a lot of threats before. He said this is the greatest threat they're facing. Do you think that was hype?

FUENTES: Well, the problem he has is very political in the aftermath of the Iraq War. When it turned out that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons and chemical, biological weapons, Tony Blair was publicly vilified in Great Britain. The parliament was absolutely adamant that he had been a puppet of George W. Bush and they shouldn't have lost the people they lost in the Iraq War, and that they were forced into it politically by the U.S.

So, for now, they've taken a stand back of being reluctant to get involved with these situations. And a good example was a year ago when they refused, the parliament, for the first time refused to back our request to assist in air strikes in Syria. They said we're not going to do it.

So for the Brits, they have to try to convince their people, and it's going to be harder to convince them in the aftermath of what happened in Iraq the first time around. BERMAN: Now, there's a key distinction here. What Britain is doing

now is a homeland security issue for Great Britain. It is not foreign policy, per se, because they are not taking any extended action against ISIS inside Iraq or Syria.

Patrick, there is a debate here in the United States about what the U.S. policy should be inside Iraq, and specifically Syria. This weekend, a Democratic senator, Dianne Feinstein, she had criticism for the president, the leader of her own party, President Obama. Let's listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORNIA: I think I've learned one thing about this president, and that is he's very cautious. Maybe in this instance too cautious.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Too cautious. What do you make of that? Do you agree? And, if so, what makes him too cautious?

SKINNER: Well, I think right now, it's a matter of optics or PR. He appears to be too cautious because there's a section of the population that thinks we should do something right now. And now most people agree we have to do something. Now do we have to do something immediately right now in Syria? That's an open question.

The administration made the decision which I believe is the correct one in Iraq, to work with small, local, specialized units in Iraq to stem the tide. And that was pretty effective. In the last 30 days, we've actually stopped their advances, pushed them back off the Mosul dam. So it's very effective in Iraq, but Syria is a completely different -- it's almost a different planet. And it's so complicated there, that it makes Iraq look like Switzerland.

And so I understand caution. Will there be a need to go do air strikes in Syria? Probably, because that's where ISIS is, or ISIL's main strength is. But there is not an existential threat that they're going to come out of Syria right now. So you probably wait to do the right thing.

BERMAN: Hey, Tom, how do you find that point, that inflection point between caution and policy paralysis?

FUENTES: Well, I think it would be when the threat is more imminent than it is now. And I think that word has been so overused for more than the past 12 years, that threat is imminent. Well, imminent used to mean that you're just about to be hit. It didn't mean that, well, some day they might do this, they might do that, they might attack.

And that's been the problem, is that there are many public figures in this country that have cried wolf for a long time. And now we might actually have a wolf and nobody wants to listen. We've heard this before. They don't buy it. So you have a very suspicious public in Great Britain, in the United States, that are suspicious of cries for more war.

BERMAN: All right, Tom Fuentes, Patrick Skinner, very, very interesting discussion this morning. Gentlemen, I appreciate your help.

Three Americans held captive speak from North Korea. This is a CNN exclusive. We're going to break down the interviews, plus get an analysis of what the United States will now do to bring these men home.

Plus, an experimental drug so promising that some say it could be a game-changer. We're going to speak to a cardiologist about what all this buzz is about.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEW MILLER, AMERICAN HELD CAPTIVE IN NORTH KOREA: My situation is very urgent, that very soon I'm going to trial and I would be directly sent to prison. I think this is -- this interview is my final chance to push the American government into helping me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: That is American Matthew Miller speaking exclusively to CNN this morning. He, Kenneth Bae, and Jeffrey Fowle spoke out in a rare new interview with CNN about their current conditions. As expected, these interviews were closely monitored by North Korean officials. Can the U.S. bring these Americans home?

Let's bring in Peter Beinart; he's a CNN political commentator and contributing editor for Atlantic Media, along with White House correspondent Michelle Kosinski. Peter, let me start with you. You heard him say -- he said he thinks that this is the last chance. He's begging the U.S. to intervene somehow. What is the U.S. doing to bring these Americans home?

PETER BEINART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this puts the administration in a difficult position. On the one hand, the administration clearly has a responsibility for any American in distress. On the other hand, you don't want the North Koreans to believe that by taking hostages, essentially, they can gain concessions from the United States. So it's a difficult balancing act to see what you can do to secure his release without seeming like you're actually giving the North Koreans something in return for taking him.

CAMEROTA: Michelle, it seems as though the North Koreans are very interested in having a high level U.S. envoy go to North Korea to negotiate. How do you believe the White House will respond today?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: All right, well, they're not going to do North Korea's bidding, as the guest said, without North Korea playing by Western rules to some extent. And it's interesting to compare this to what we've seen in the past.

I mean, just a month ago we heard from two of these detainees in North Korea. They did a sort of short interview with AP Television, but it wasn't really shown in its entirety. It was these two sort of snippets; didn't get a whole lot of play. I personally don't even remember seeing this.

And then it was as if North Korea didn't get enough attention from that. Now they offer CNN this five minute each sit-down interview, tightly controlled, obviously, but interviews with the detainees. So it's clear that they want to send this greater message now.