Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

U.S. Drone Strike Accidentally Killed Two Hostages; Interview with Representative Adam Schiff; Interview with Representative Jason Chaffetz. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 23, 2015 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00] JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And as I mentioned, hundreds of hours of surveillance was conducted against this particular compound. We know that near continuous surveillance of this compound was conducted in the days leading up to the operation. And that, based on that surveillance and other forms of intelligence, the intelligence community did assess with near certainty that this was an Al Qaida compound that was frequented by Al Qaida leaders. That assessment turned out to be correct.

They also had a near certainty assessment, again, based on that surveillance, that there was no civilians present and that no civilians would be at risk if the operation were carried out.

Now, what we also know is that Al Qaida considers these kinds of hostages to be extraordinarily valuable. And they go to tremendous lengths to try to conceal the location of these hostages. And that is why, unfortunately, that near certainty assessment was wrong.

And that is why the president has directed a review to determine if there are any changes that we can make to determine or to make it less likely that these kinds of unintended consequences would occur again.

QUESTION: If Al Qaida had been willing to make a trade, would the U.S. have been willing to make a similar trade that they made for Bowe Bergdahl, for the life of Warren Weinstein? And was one ever offered?

EARNEST: Peter, the U.S. government went to great lengths to try to rescue Dr. Weinstein. There were significant resources dedicated to trying to determine his whereabouts.

QUESTION: Did we offer a trade?

EARNEST: We've been very clear about the policy of the United States, as a painful as it is. It is a policy that prevents the United States from negotiating with terrorists.

And that policy was in place in the course of our efforts to try to secure the rescue of Dr. Weinstein. And, again, this is a policy that particularly to the Weinstein family is a very difficult one. And I think, quite frankly, I think it's a pretty difficult policy even for just the average human being.

But the analysis is a reasonable one, which is that to engage in the practice of negotiating with terrorist groups to try to secure the release of innocent Americans would only put at risk more innocent Americans. OK?

Jon (ph)?

QUESTION: Josh, you won't even tell us if this was a drone strike or these were drone strikes?

EARNEST: Jon (ph), I'm not able -- despite the extensive information I am able to provide about a previously classified operation, I'm not able to discuss precisely how this operation was carried out.

QUESTION: OK. So, you tell us that Adam Gadahn and Ahmed Farouq were not the targets. Does the president regret the fact that they were killed in these strikes?

EARNEST: No. Those two individuals that you mentioned were leaders in Al Qaida. They had prominent positions. We know that Mr. Farouq, for example, was a leader of AQIS, Al Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent, and that he was playing a prominent role in leading that network's operations and planning in that region of the world.

We know that Mr. Gadahn had styled himself as a prominent spokesperson for Al Qaida. And it is for that and other reasons that he was indicted by the U.S. government for treason.

QUESTION: So the administration's policy on the justified killing of American citizens in these counterterrorism strikes, according to the attorney general is that they represent an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States and that capture was not feasible. Are you saying that Adam Gadahn and Ahmed Farouq represented an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States? Because that, under your policy, is the definition of a justified killing of an American.

EARNEST: And, what I'm saying is that these two Al Qaida leaders were frequenting an Al Qaida compound that had been identified by the United States. And the United States carried out a counterterrorism operation against those compounds with the intent of taking Al Qaida fighters and Al Qaida leaders off the battlefield.

We do that because we know that the Al Qaida organization is actively planning and plotting against American citizens. We have, as -- as is encapsulated in the authorization to use military force, the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates because of the way in which the way these affiliates are plotting and actively planning against the United States and our citizens.

QUESTION: OK. But what I asked is, Gadahn and Farouq, did they represent an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States, which is the words of your -- of the attorney general as to what would qualify as a justified killing of an American.

EARNEST: Well, what I -- what -- what I can share from here is that these two individuals were not targeted in this specific counterterrorism operation, but we know that they were hit in this counterterrorism operation and they were killed in this counterterrorism operation because they were leaders of Al Qaeda and we know that Al Qaeda is an organization that is actively plotting and planning against the United States.

QUESTION: But is it legal under the guidelines that this administration has put in place -- is it legal to kill American citizens who do not represent an imminent threat or violent attack against the United States?

EARNEST: What is permissible under international law and in the protocol that the president has established is for the United States to carry out strikes, to carry out operations against Al Qaeda compounds that we can assess with near certainty are Al Qaeda compounds that are frequented by Al Qaeda leaders.

And that is the operation that took place, and that operation did result in the death of Al Qaeda fighters and Al Qaeda leaders who were in this Al Qaeda compound.

QUESTION: But would it have been illegal for you to intentionally target those two men?

EARNEST: Well, there is a separate procedure and protocol for specifically targeting American citizens, and this is the protocol that was followed in the targeted operation against Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. So there is a separate procedure and protocol for doing exactly that.

QUESTION: So if it was not Adam Gadahn who was being targeted in one strike and it was not Ahmed Farouq being targeted in the other strike, who was being targeted?

EARNEST: What was targeted was what the intelligence community assessed with near certainty was an Al Qaeda compound that we assessed with near certainty was being frequented by Al Qaeda members, Al Qaeda fighters and, in this case, Al Qaeda leaders.

QUESTION: So there was no "who"? There was no specific Al Qaeda leader or leaders that were being targeted; it was a compound?

EARNEST: What was being targeted was this specific Al Qaeda compound.

QUESTION: In both cases?

EARNEST: In both cases.

QUESTION: In both cases. And no names attached to that? There were no -- we didn't have a list of...

EARNEST: That's correct. What we were targeting specifically was this Al Qaeda compound that was based on this near-certain assessment that this was a compound that was maintained by Al Qaeda and frequented by Al Qaeda leaders.

QUESTION: OK.

There's another story I wanted to get you on quickly, revelations regarding donations to the Clinton Foundation and actions taken by the United States government. I want to take the second part first.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: All right. We are jumping out of the White House briefing here, which has been dominated by talk over these drone strikes that have killed two hostages. One of whom is an American, as well as two Americans who are al Qaeda leaders.

So I want to bring in our chief political analyst Gloria Borger to talk about this.

One of the interesting things is that we have learned today that this strike that killed these two hostages, Warren Weinstein, and also an Italian man and that the administration wasn't aware that they were at this site. This happened in January and you've learned that a review of this has been going on for some time.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.

KEILAR: And the administration didn't actually know in January that these two men had been killed.

BORGER: Right. I was talking with senior administration official who some knowledge of this investigation that the review of this drone strike, which happened in January has been going on for quite some time. And I was told that when the Italian Prime Minister Renzi was here -- one of the people killed, as you know, is Italian -- that the president did not know who had been identified in that strike definitively.

The conclusion of the identification process just happened this week. Obviously, as Josh Earnest pointed out, this is a remote place without a lot of access for us. And I was told that the concern at the White House is about that this is a colossal tragedy.

But what we heard from Josh Earnest today I think goes beyond that, Brianna. Because what he said was that this does raise questions about whether changes need to be made to these protocols. I was told that this was, quote, "done by the book." And what Earnest seemed to be saying and I think reflecting the president is well, if it was done by the book, how did we make this mistake?

And you now hear Republicans like House member Duncan Hunter raising questions about whether there was -- there needs to be more interagency coordination on things like this.

KEILAR: Let's pose this question, Gloria, to California Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff. He is the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee.

That was fascinating to hear this during this briefing, Congressman, that this was an operation carried out by the book. Protocols were followed and, yet, as we now know, two hostages, Warren Weinstein and Giovanni Lo Porto now dead. So what does that tell you about the protocols?

[13:40:13] REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), RANKING MEMBER, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Well, initially, if the protocols were followed, that is one of the questions we're going to have to analyze on the Intelligence Committees, were they in fact followed? That's certainly the initial understanding of the administration. If they were followed, then, you know, we're going to still have to ask the hard questions.

Does that mean that the protocols are not enough or does it mean that we're never going to get to an absolute certainty and even though we had a terrible, tragic outcome here, it's not indicative of a need to make any systemic change. And I don't want to prejudge the outcome of that review. But I think it's a very important one to have. It's one, frankly, that we have continually, as you know and as you've been describing, there are a couple of different kinds of counterterrorism operations. Some where you know the actual identity of the target.

It's a high-value target and others where you know there are members of al Qaeda and important members but you don't necessarily know who the identity of those members are and the latter is, obviously, been a subject of far more scrutiny and concern over the years.

KEILAR: And that is the case in this. We understand and that's what some of the questions in the briefing we're getting at, were -- was perhaps the target here is discriminating as it should have been.

You know, when we think about, in particular, this American Warren Weinstein, what can you tell us about where the search for him was? Because we heard from Josh Earnest that the administration had put in a lot of effort to finding him, but still other reports we're hearing say that perhaps that wasn't the case here in recent months and recent years, especially following the trade for Bowe Bergdahl that the president really took a political hit on.

SCHIFF: Well, I can tell you without getting in the specifics of the search for Dr. Weinstein that this is a top priority for the intelligence community, certainly for the administration and the president whenever there is American held hostage to do everything possible to locate them, to figure out if there is a safe way to rescue them.

It's often very difficult and these hostages were held for a long time and the fact that this compound was under surveillance for as long as it was without any indication that hostages were present gives you an indication of just the kind of operational trade craft that al Qaeda uses. They know that these are valuable hostages for them. They know we're looking for them. They know we'll try to rescue them.

So they take a lot of precautions. The other point I would make and this is something that you alluded to earlier and that is that there were al Qaeda operatives at this compound. It's not a situation where this was a compound that was a -- a group of civilians living here. Had no connection to al Qaeda. So the intelligence community got it right that these were al Qaeda figures.

And, in fact, a senior al Qaeda figure was present, but they, obviously, tragically got it wrong that there weren't other people also present and that is what we're going to -- precisely what we're going to have to look at.

KEILAR: Do you think that might be bad intelligence? Do you think that's just limitations to intelligence?

SCHIFF: I don't know that this is a case where we got bad intelligence, where, for example, we relied on intelligence that we got from a sister agency and it was flawed intelligence or there were some malicious purpose involved. It probably was just the absence of complete intelligence. And as the White House indicated, we were never going to get to an absolute certainty.

We will look at the quality and quantity of intelligence that we have here and be asking ourselves a tough question, was that enough or was the fact that innocent lives were lost in itself proof that it wasn't enough and therefore need to yet, again, raise the bar, and how would we do that?

KEILAR: But you're not -- when I listen to you, Congressman, you're not necessarily taking the administration's word at this point that protocols were followed to the tee.

SCHIFF: You know, I think as an oversight committee, we have to greet everything with a certain level of skepticism. You know, I've worked enough with people in the intelligence community to know that these are good, hard-working, patriotic people, but like all people they are capable of mistakes. And so I think we owe it to the families and we owe it to the American public not to take anything as an article of faith.

And so we will review this. We should review this. We should look at it objectively and that's exactly what I expect we will do.

KEILAR: The president during his administration has come under fire, particularly from his own party for the great expansion of using drone strikes to fight terrorism. Certainly that's been curtailed, especially in Pakistan over the years. But do you think that what happened in January is going to change the administration's drone policy?

[13:45:15] SCHIFF: Well, I can't comment specifically on some of the aspects of your question, but I can say that we're going to look at this counterterrorism operation and it will inform us in the continuing oversight that we do of these counterterrorism operations, particularly when it involves targets where we don't know the identity of the target. And we will ask ourselves what were the circumstances here and should this inform us of any broader issues with respect to the policy on counterterrorism operations.

So we're going to be asking ourselves those questions and, you know, I think you can appreciate how there are times where you'll have very good intelligence. You'll follow someone, for example, who is planting a roadside bomb and you will follow them to a known al Qaeda compound and there is no question that this person is an al Qaeda operative and he is taking action to try to injure, maim or kill our troops.

But we may not know the identity of that person and I think most Americans would agree that we can take action to defend our troops against that person. But, obviously, that's one of the end of the spectrum. On the other end of the spectrum, critics will argue that the intelligence community is presuming people that are of military age in a war zone or therefore combatants.

Now that is not the case, but, obviously, we have to make sure that we're doing vigorous oversight and that when there are these operations where we don't know the precise identity that we have full and complete and good intelligence that these folks are involved in terrorist activities meant to injure Americans.

KEILAR: Congressman Schiff, thanks so much for joining us. Really appreciate it.

And coming up, more on this breaking news story, this operation against al Qaeda that left two hostages dead. One an American, one an Italian. It also killed two operatives of that terror group who are also American.

We have much more ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:50:45] KEILAR: Let's return now to our breaking news, the operation against al Qaeda that left two hostages dead. American Warren Weinstein and Italian national Giovanni Lo Porto.

Joining me now to talk about this, we have Bob Baer. He's a CNN intelligence and security analyst and a former CIA operative. We have retired Lt. Col. James Reese, CNN global affairs analyst and former Delta Force commander. And here with me, Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst.

So, Peter, you have Warren Weinstein who had been kidnapped in 2011. This has been some time. I know a lot of people are now asking the administration, could they have done more to try to rescue him? Is this really the way that this had to end?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I think the sort answer is no. I mean, obviously, this was a huge mistake. But, you know, I've talked to multiple U.S. and Pakistani officials about the case, and for the Americans, it was complicated by the fact that he was held by al Qaeda. The Pakistanis did reach out to militant organizations in the area that he was held without much success.

But you know, there were other Americans who are being held today by groups in this area. And I think there's a lesson here, which is, we need to work and put more pressure on the Pakistani government who do have kind of relationships with some of these militant groups to basically get these Americans -- a woman called Caitlin Coleman, her Canadian husband, Joshua Boyle. They have had a kid probably in captivity.

They're still out there. So let's -- as well as examining the mistakes that happened in this case, let's learn some lessons for the next case.

KEILAR: And there may be a next case, Colonel Reese, you look at this one. Is this an embarrassment for the U.S. military?

LT. COL. JAMES REESE, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Brianna, no, it's not. I mean, I've watched this all morning now, and it's tragic is what it is. And it's very difficult, but it's not an embarrassment. This is very difficult operations. And you've got men and women that spend 24/7, day in and day out, trying to hunt Al Qaeda throughout the world, especially when you've got the teams that are flying these drones and the predators and everything else, and they're pumping this information into these joint operation centers around.

And you're trying to get this persistent ISR going, whether it's from drones, from personnel on the ground, all the different intelligence aspects we have. It's hard. And I guarantee that people that pulled the trigger on this feel horrible, at the end of the day, this is part of the collateral damage that comes with trying to fight and destroy al Qaeda and do a counterterrorism operations.

KEILAR: OK, so, Bob, that's what the colonel's saying, this is part of the collateral damage that is part of this, but, we heard a lot in that White House briefing, questions about whether the targets need to be a little more specific. We heard from Josh Earnest that the target was known to be Al Qaeda, but they didn't know exactly who it was.

Would that have helped in this situation?

ROBERT BAER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, there's a couple of problems, and one is the tribal areas of Pakistan. We can't put operatives on the ground, neither military nor CIA. There's no way to confirm the intelligence. As Colonel Reese will tell you, you know, we preferably like to have American eyes on a target before you hit it. In this case, it was not possible.

If you can blame anybody, it's the policy of using signature strikes. You can't identify the target by name, but yet you go ahead and fire a missile, simply because they look like they're al Qaeda, and their certain cell intercepts and the rest of it, but you can't put a name on it. So a tragedy like this is almost inevitable, nobody's really at fault. You know, you could cut drone strikes back to nothing, if you demanded a name, precise information, truly actionable intelligence, but there was a policy made under the Bush administration to go ahead with these drone strikes even though they were -- the information wasn't all that good.

KEILAR: Yes, and a number of these strikes are successful. This is the first time something like this has happened. Important to know, but still horribly tragic as the administration looks at what may need to change in the future.

Bob Baer, Colonel Reese, Peter Bergen, thanks so much to all of you. And let's now to the day's other big story. After a series of

breaches at the White House, the Secret Service is under scrutiny again, and this time it involves the Houston home of former President George H.W. Bush.

An investigation conducted by the Department of Homeland Security revealed that the house was not protected by a working alarm for at least 13 months, more than a year. The Secret Service did put one agent in a roving post to secure the resident, and no breaches were detected.

[13:55:15] But I want to bring in Republicans Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah to talk about this. He chairs the House Oversight Committee, which is charged with overseeing the Secret Service.

So, Congressman, thanks for being with us. And I want to read to you this statement that we have from the Bush family spokesman, Jim McGrath. He says, "George and Barbara Bush have total confidence in the men and women of the Secret Service. Their trust in them is as unshakable as it is unbreakable."

OK. So they have confidence. But I would say this isn't that unusual. When there have been breaches, we hear President Obama stands by the Secret Service. These are, after all, the men and women who are protecting them. And there's loyalty, and certainly you don't want to upset the people who are responsible for your safety. But you're in this oversight position. So what do you think?