Return to Transcripts main page

New Day

Discussion of CIA Interrogation Techniques; Are Obama's Drone Strikes as bad as Interrogation Techniques?; At Least 2 Killed in West Coast Storm

Aired December 12, 2014 - 07:00   ET

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

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And he maintained the agency's enhanced interrogation techniques or EITs, produced intelligence. Even though he conceded it was unknowable if the same results were obtainable without harsh methods.

JOHN BRENNAN, CIA DIRECTOR: It is our considered view that the detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided information that was useful and was used in the ultimate operation to go against bin Laden.

ACOSTA: That's in sharp contrast to the torture report from Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee chair, Dianne Feinstein. She responded to Brennan in a tweet that critical intelligence that led to bin Laden was unrelated to EITs, but former CIA officials insist they were doing what was necessary to stop more attacks on the U.S.

BILL HARLOW, FORMER CIA SPOKESPERSON: We didn't have the luxury of time. We were at a ticking time bomb situation.

ACOSTA: On THE LEAD, former CIA director Michael Hayden defended the forced rectal feeding of detainees.

MICHAEL HAYDEN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: They had limited options in which to go do this. It was intravenous, with needles, which would be dangerous with a non-cooperative detainee. It was through the nasal passages.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Pureeing hummus and pine nuts and...

HAYDEN: Jake, I'm not a doctor and neither are you, but what I am told is this is one of the ways that the body is rehydrated. These were medical procedures. And to give you a sense...

TAPPER: You're really defending rectal rehydration?

HAYDEN: What I'm defending is history. To give you a sense as to how this report was put together, this activity, which was done five times, in each time for the health of the detainee, not part of the interrogation program. Not designed to soften him up for any questioning.

TAPPER: Critics of the torture report asked what's the difference between harsh interrogations under President Bush and classified drone attacks under President Obama? One intelligence committee member insisted the drone program is legal.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe that the CIA is acting within the law in the intentions right now. That's as far as I want to go.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ACOSTA: Now, all of these attacks on the CIA prompted a spirited defense from former President George H.W. Bush, who said in a statement last night he felt compelled to reiterate his confidence in the men and women who work there. Of course former president George H.W. Bush was not only the director of the CIA; the headquarters is named after him -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right Jim, thanks so much for all that background.

Joining us now to talk more about the fallout over the CIA report and the drone program, and all the troubling questions these are raising is CNN political commentator and former White House press secretary Jay Carney.

Jay, great to see you this morning.

JAY CARNEY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Good morning.

CAMEROTA: First, let's talk about this press conference from John Brennan yesterday. It was so unusual, it was unprecedented to have this press conference at the CIA. Did you think that this helped John Brennan? What were your impressions?

CARNEY: I think on the margins it helped John Brennan. And let me just say, having worked with him when he was in the White House, I know that he is an extraordinarily capable individual who was extremely effective as the president's counterterrorism adviser and as an effective CIA director.

I simply -- I disagree with his conclusions that these techniques were necessary. I think the techniques themselves were torture, whether they were authorized by the Justice Department or not.

What I think Director Brennan demonstrated was his intense desire to move on. That he wishes this weren't still a topic of conversation. Because it undermines morale at the CIA and puts into question the ethics of a whole generation of CIA officers with whom Brennan worked.

But I think it's incredibly important, that we need to open this chapter in history and make it clear what happened, so that these kinds of activities aren't repeated.

I think the Senate report is filled with details that demonstrate that EITs, enhanced interrogation techniques, did not work, were not necessary, and that most, if not all of the valuable intelligence that our interrogators gleaned in the hunt for bin Laden and in thwarting attacks, came from other methods that weren't torture.

CAMEROTA: Jay, in all of the hue and cry about the torture tactics that have now been confirmed by this Senate report, there's another conversation that is beginning, and critics say there is an equally unethical practice happening right now. And that is the Obama administration's drone program.

Even former CIA officials say how can we be so outraged over the so- called torture tactics when we're killing people, often civilians, with the flick of a switch from the sky? Here is Jose Rodriguez -- he's the former head of the CIA clandestine services -- on this topic. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOSE RODRIGUEZ, FORMER HEAD OF THE CIA CLANDESTINE SERVICES: This administration actually does not take any prisoners. They prefer to kill them from afar using drones. And somehow, they feel that, because they kill from a distance, somehow it's more ethical. More ethical than the difficult and messy and unpleasant task and mission of actually interrogating prisoners.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: Jay, what about that? Is it more ethical to kill people from the sky rather than the terror -- I mean, the torture tactics that we've seen?

CARNEY: Well, these are definitely profound questions. I think that the legal structure around the drone program is a lot more sound than the so-called torture memos that authorized enhanced interrogation techniques under the previous administration.

CAMEROTA: How so. I mean, what are legal structures around killing people, hundreds of whom have been civilians, we believe, even though it's shrouded in secrecy?

CARNEY: Well, Alisyn, as you know, every instance of war in our history and the world's history involves civilian casualties. Drone strikes are certainly much more precise, for example, than the bombing of Dresden in World War II or bombings in Vietnam or in other efforts or even bombings in Desert Storm in the '90s.

So -- but there's no question that tragedies happen and that civilians are lost. I think the real question about the drone program is, is it counterproductive in the sense that it creates more animosity towards the United States in areas around the world than it is effective in eliminating terrorists? I think that's a bigger question.

I think it marginally is effective on the plus side. But when it comes to the legal structure, I think it's more sound.

CAMEROTA: But Jay, you can't dismiss the ethical questions about the drone program. Because...

CARNEY: Oh no, I wouldn't, I wouldn't at all.

CAMEROTA: I mean, what we know, we don't know much. Because much of it is shrouded in secrecy. But we believe that there have been more than 2,400 people killed in these drone strikes. Not all of them terrorists. At best, they're suspects. There's no adjudication. Sometimes, their children are killed; sometimes their families are killed. Is it time for to us take a good, hard look at what the U.S. is doing with this?

CARNEY: Well, I think the answer is yes. I think on -- in terms of a continued look at these programs, and an effort to bring more of them into the light, away from CIA jurisdiction under and towards Pentagon jurisdiction, which is not as classified and therefore more transparent.

But I think again, when you talk about the tragedy of civilian casualties, you have to put it in the context of a broader effort to eliminate and take on terrorists, who are trying to harm the United States and still are trying to do that.

So -- and the justification for the drone program is, if we don't have the capacity to go in and capture a terrorist who is actively plotting to attack U.S. interests or allied interests, then our options are, and the host country has no capacity to get him, then we either ignore the fact that we're capable of eliminating him or we take the shot.

And there's no question that there are risks associated with taking a shot. There are sometimes civilian casualties. But I think, again, the legal reasoning behind that is stronger than the reasoning behind torture.

CAMEROTA: But of course, you remember that the CIA says that they were waterboarding people because they -- there was the possibility of an imminent attack, and they had to get information out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah about that attack so it was justified for them to waterboard these individuals.

I mean, it sounds like the same rationale. In other words, the rationale for the drone program sounds like the same rationale that the CIA was using with the torture tactics, and maybe we're just making the same mistakes again.

CARNEY: Well, I just disagree. Torture is profoundly illegal. Fighting an enemy who's trying to eliminate you using lethal weapons is obviously something that's been part of the conduct of war for centuries.

The -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't ethical questions here and the remove with -- that a drone strike allows, the fact that you can, you know, kill from so far away, obviously raises moral and ethical implications, even if the result is the same of, you know, a kind of a mortar attack from -- from a closer distance.

So -- I think that these issues are really, really important. The torture matter is, I think, more profound. Because torture itself is illegal internationally. The Bush administration, you know, went through extreme contortions to try to justify techniques that, by any other name, were torture.

I certainly don't think those individuals who used enhanced interrogation techniques that were authorized ought to be prosecuted. CAMEROTA: Yes.

CARNEY: They were doing what they were told was legal. But the authors of those reports and the defenders of them, including Vice President Cheney, I think have at least a lot on their conscience, if not more.

CAMEROTA: All right. Jay, thanks so much for trying to make sense of all of this for us. Nice to see you this morning.

CARNEY: Thank you, Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: Let's go over to Chris.

CUOMO: All right. Extreme weather is in the mix from California to Canada. The West Coast is just getting hammered by a very powerful and deadly storm. Ferocious hurricane-force winds, heavy rain, hundreds of thousands of people without power. They're now two deaths being blamed on the storm so far, and it is far from over.

So let's get right to Dan Simon, live in San Francisco with the latest. We know that it's kind of moved past there. But now other areas are being exposed. What do we know?

DAN SIMON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Chris. Well, conditions here in San Francisco are improving, as the storm moves south. L.A., they're going to be the next to get absolutely drenched here.

But a lot of work here to do in Northern California. Utility crews going to be working around the clock. Still 250,000 people without power from California to the Canadian border.

But this is certainly a storm that lived up to its hype. You had a lot of trees that fell down. You had parking lots that looked like lakes. You know, things of that nature. Roof collapses.

But Chris, you know, one of the questions that we've been getting is how is this going to impact the California drought? Well, this is certainly a step in the right direction, if you talk to experts. If there's one thing they agree on, it's that you'd have to have several more of these kinds of superstorms before you begin to eradicate the drought. Certainly, not the way you want to do it. But obviously, this moisture, given all the impact that it's had, it's still some welcome relief.

But the bottom line is, utility crews going to be out in full force trying to get power restored. Because that's when you truly return back to normal -- Chris.

CUOMO: All right, Dan. Thank you very much for the reporting. We'll check back in with you.

PEREIRA: Is that sobering, to think that they have wiped out three years of drought with one massive storm?

CUOMO: Right. But I guess it's doing it the wrong way. PEREIRA: It is the wrong way.

CUOMO: You were trying to explain to me the ground there also can't absorb...

PEREIRA: No, it can't. It's not as absorbent as anywhere else. You don't ever see, really, a lot of water pooling anywhere. It just sits on top, and there's nothing to grab onto, especially after fires wipe away all of the ground cover.

CAMEROTA: They need it spread out.

PEREIRA: They do.

CAMEROTA: Had it for three years.

PEREIRA: Can we take a look at headlines?

CUOMO: Please.

PEREIRA: Eleven minutes past the hour, let's do it. Here we go.

Another Cosby accuser coming forward. This time it's one-time supermodel Beverly Johnson. She wrote an essay for "Vanity Fair." In it she said Cosby drugged a cappuccino that he made for her during a read-through for a role on "The Cosby Show." She says Cosby then forced her out of his home when she would not stop cursing at him.

CNN has reached out to Cosby's attorney but has not heard back. Beverly Johnson is going to join us live here during the 8 a.m. hour of NEW DAY.

Federal charges could be coming for some Port Authority officials who authorized bridge closings, demanded by aides to Chris Christie. "The New York Times" says prosecutors are weighing an obscure statute that allows charges against members of a government agency that get at least $10,000 in federal money a year. That includes the Port Authority, which runs the George Washington Bridge. It's unclear if two Christie associates fired for links to the scandal could be affected.

Symbolic milestone in the crisis in Ukraine. The war-torn eastern region had its first day without military or civilian casualties in seven months since a truce was first declared. Ukraine's president says it is proof that the west diplomatic pressure and sanctions against Russia are working, and it comes a day after a day of silence proposed Tuesday by Ukraine and Russia.

A dramatic -- oh, my goodness -- end to a three-day search for a California man who went on the run with his four young sons. It culminated in this video you're seeing here after a lengthy stand-off on a San Diego freeway. Police officers tackling Daniel Perez on a bridge as he began climbing over the railing about 150 feet off the ground after a high-speed chase.

Police began looking for the entire family, specifically for Daniel Perez, after his wife's body was found in the trunk of their car. We are so relieved to tell you that all four boys made it away unscathed. Police have confirmed that the body found in the trunk of the car was indeed the young boys' mother, Erica Perez.

CUOMO: Poor kids.

CAMEROTA: Terrible.

PEREIRA: They've seen so much.

CAMEROTA: But the police have to be so cool-headed in that situation. It could have gone much, much worse.

CUOMO: The challenge now is where do they go, those boys?

PEREIRA: They have family. Remember seeing the tearful plea from the -- from an aunt who was like, "We need these boys back"? So there's family there that...

CUOMO: good.

PEREIRA: ... very much is concerned about them.

CAMEROTA: OK. Thanks, Michaela.

Well, the CIA chief is defending the agency from criticism over its harsh interrogation program that was implemented after 9/11. But what about controversial measures under the current administration? Does force-feeding detainees carry the same weight as a torture tactic? We'll discuss.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Now that we're talking about what we do in times of war, the questions are getting harder and harder. For example, insiders call it death by video game. Now many former CIA officials are under fire over torture tactics that happened during Bush. But what about President Obama's drone strikes? Does that program deserve the same kind of scrutiny and rejection? Morally, legally? It is killing people from a distance, with civilian casualties, and it certainly happens. So is that better or different than torture?

Let's bring in Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior loyal analyst and former federal prosecutor; and Mr. Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security. Gentlemen, thank you.

The question is obvious. The answer hard. What do you think?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It is a hard question. I think the answer is there is a significant difference. And I do think drone strikes are legally more defensible than torture, for this reason.

Look, at -- right after 9/11, Congress authorized a war against al Qaeda. That war could include bombs, missiles, troops. Drone strikes are a form of war that are -- that is actually more accurate and leads to fewer civilian casualties than if you started dropping bombs or shooting missiles in the traditional way.

So the argument is not that nobody dies, but that it is a more targeted, more efficient, more humane way of -- than the alternatives.

CUOMO: One of the problems with these analyses, Clark, is that it seems like you can make anything justifiable, if you want. One of the problems people are having coming out of the torture report is you keep hearing these justice officials saying, "Yes, it wasn't torture." And it shocks the conscience, that the things that we're seeing in the torture report weren't considered torture. What are we missing about what's legal, versus what's right?

CLARK KENT ERVIN, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Well, I certainly agree with that, Chris. I mean, there's no question but that the reason that the administration, the Bush administration considered those techniques not to be torture, is because they clearly were. They were defined in such a way that they were not considered to be torture. I mean, it's an Alice in Wonderland use of terms. Clearly, it was torture. I mean, I think the test is, if those techniques were applied against us, would we consider it to be torture? I think the answer to that is yes.

But as Jeff says, I completely agree, and for me it's an easier question. The reason that the drone tool is used, is because it's a much more surgical and precise one. These drones can hover for hours or days over sites to make it as certain as we can be, in this uncertain world, that the person targeted is, in fact, the person whom we want to target.

CUOMO: Here's the problem, though, Clark. People who matter disagree with you two guys. Let's put up the full screens. Let's start with John McLaughlin. Former deputy CIA director, OK? This is what he said in an NPR interview Tuesday.

"I suspect you had a similar graphic description -- if you had a similarly graphic description of what happens when innocents are killed in a drone strike, you'd be equally disturbed by what you read."

So he's saying there that there is an equivalency to the two things. You are killing people; you are doing horrible things, somewhat indiscriminately, in the name of a righteous behavior. How is that any different?

TOOBIN: Well, it's not different. I mean, we know that when we are going to have a war, we are going to have civilian casualties. I mean, that is just -- it's been true in every war in history. The question is, do drones -- are drones so different from other weapons? Are they really worse? And I think the evidence is, they're not perfect, obviously, but they're better than the tools we had before.

CUOMO: Now, you know, maybe we're getting lost in the direct comparison versus just the basic question, Clark, of -- now that we're talking about what we should do and what we shouldn't -- drones, as putting that in the spotlight. John Yoo, former Justice Department official under the Bush administration, he says, "Rather than capture terrorists, which produces the most valuable intelligence on al Qaeda, Mr. Obama has relied almost exclusively on drone attacks and has thereby been able to dodge difficult questions over detention. But those deaths from the sky violate personal liberty far more than the waterboarding of three al Qaeda detainees ever did."

Do you agree?

ERVIN: No, I don't agree with that. I think that the reason why the administration has used drones is because they're trying to avoid the difficulties of interrogation. I think the reason, as I say, is because, as the tools in the toolbox go, it's the most surgical one. Of course civilians are killed in drone strikes, but the numbers, relatively speaking, are relatively few.

These techniques that were used on these detainees were clearly abhorrent. The CIA director has admitted that. And there is no question but that it's just a horse of a different color.

TOOBIN: And John Yoo, by the way, is the author of the disgraced and discredited memo that said waterboarding was not torture. So you know, what you see is some after-the-fact rationale for trying to make the next president look worse.

But I mean, I just -- I think, you know, for the guy who wrote that horrible memo that has since been withdrawn about torture, you know -- consider the source.

CUOMO: Yes. You have the American people in just about every poll saying, "We don't care what you do to bad guys, especially after 9/11. Keep us safe." All right. So there's a little bit of what, you know, power the people give government in this.

But it's also raising real trust issues, because when you hear them saying, "Yes, that's not torture," that makes you think, "Well, can we trust the decisions that they're making?" Because if they say this isn't torture, you know, what does that mean, Jeffrey, in terms of whether we trust the process that's being applied?

TOOBIN: Well, and you know, I think you put your finger on a very important point here. Is that, you know, I hate to be lawyer-centric. But as you look at this whole controversy that's happened over -- since this report has come out, a lot of it goes back to the lawyers.

The lawyers at the beginning, the John Yoos, the Jay Bybees, who said all these EITs -- waterboarding, hanging people from the ceiling -- was not torture. So that led to all the horrible misdeeds in the field. But if you have lawyers of courage and intelligence and integrity in the first place, who said, "You know what? Don't do this," a lot of these problems would have been avoided.

CUOMO: I think the trouble for a lot of people in this discussion right now is that they're saying, "Boy, if these guys just won't call it what it was and own it, what else does that mean that we need to know about going forward?"

Clark Kent Ervin, thank you very much, appreciate the perspective. Professor, always a pleasure.

Now, we're having this conversation because it matters to you, so let us know what you think. You can just tweet us, @newday or you can just tweet us by name. All right?

Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, Chris. He has ruled it out repeatedly. So why are there signs pointing to a another Mitt Romney presidential run? John King tells us, "Inside Politics."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PEREIRA: Good to have you back with us here on NEW DAY. Here's a look at your headlines.

A monster storm certainly is packing ferocious hurricane-force winds and heavy, heavy rain. It is slamming California and Oregon. Falling trees have killed two people in Oregon. One of those victims, a teenaged boy. He was in a car when the tree came down on it. The other was a man hit by a tree as he slept in a tent. More than a foot of rain has fallen so far in some parts of California.

Now some problems spreading in California. Whooping cough, the state's health department is tallying nearly 10,000 cases so far this year. Now, that is the worst outbreak there in 70 years, even though most cases aren't quite as severe. Officials say there's actually been a rise in cases since a new vaccine was introduced in the '90s. Research shows that that vaccine doesn't last as long as the one it replaced.

The U.S. Navy will be adding a new laser to its arsenal. This cutting-edge tool was taken out for a test on a naval boat in the Persian Gulf from September to November. Officials say it was able to hit all of its targets, including helicopters and patrol boats, in practice. They say this laser is a good investment, since it is both powerful and affordable at less than a dollar a shot.

CUOMO: Is that our music or theirs?

PEREIRA: I believe it's theirs.

CUOMO: Oh, good.

PEREIRA: One more story for you. You'll like this. Pope Francis says there is a place for pets in paradise. The pope said during an appearance in St. Peter's Square that dogs, along with all of God's creatures, can go to heaven. The pope apparently was trying to comfort a young boy who was mourning the death of his dog. Now of course, conservative Catholics have argued animals cannot go to heaven, because they have no souls. You tell it to that face.

CUOMO: Boy, if that isn't media manipulation, I don't know what is.

CAMEROTA: You have no soul, puppy.

PEREIRA: Oh, my gosh. Look, kids.

CUOMO: The damned puppy.

PEREIRA: Look at this.

CAMEROTA: Literally everyone just went, "Awwww."

CUOMO: Do you agree? Well, the pope said -- I'm a Catholic, so if the pope says it, you know, that's the rule.

PEREIRA: I believe that. I like that.

CAMEROTA: Dogs seem like they have souls.

CUOMO: It's the rule in my family. We have the puppy, Alabama Doggie Dog, and Carolina "Cha-Cha" Cuomo announced that...

PEREIRA: They all have nicknames in the family.

CUOMO: ... the doggie is going to go to heaven when he dies. And she said he will go before me because he's better looking.

PEREIRA: Before you?

CUOMO: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Well, we can't argue, really, with that.

CUOMO: It stinks when they say it and they mean it.

PEREIRA: The young ones, they hurt you the most.

CAMEROTA: Though it's true. Let's get right to "Inside Politics" on NEW DAY with John King.

Hi, John.

JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT/ANCHOR: Get, thanks a lot. On a Friday morning, you go from cute puppies to I have to talk about Congress. Thanks.

CUOMO: Puppy-dog eyes, I've heard that said about you.

KING: I think all good dogs can go to heaven.

CAMEROTA: Yes, good.

KING: All right. Alisyn, Chris, Michaela, good morning to you.

A busy Friday here in Washington. Let's go "Inside Politics." And with me this morning to share their reporting and their insights, CNN's Maeve Reston; NPR's Juanna Summers.

So we're not going to shut down the government. As always, we went up to the deadline, actually, past the deadline, because we're not done yet. But the House has passed the new spending bill. The Senate will take it up eventually. Maybe today, maybe over the weekend. Well, that's the big question right now, is you need to get an agreement to bring it up under the Senate rules. If they get unanimous consent, meaning nobody objects, they could do it as early as today. But if anybody objects, it could go until Monday morning sometime. That's the clock runs out, they have to do it by Monday. The question after it passed in the House, Tea Party forces were mad.