Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Have Syrian Forces Used Chemical Weapons?; Suspicion Still Falls on All Muslims in Terror Incidents

Aired April 24, 2013 - 15:00   ET

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

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.

Tonight, how red does a red line have to be before it meets the red line test? That's the question facing the Obama administration, amid very specific allegations now that the Syrian regime is using chemical weapons.

Back in August of 2012, President Obama started drawing his red line.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

AMANPOUR (voice-over): Well, in mid-March, reports from Syria came in that the regime had now used chemical weapons. More than 20 people were killed; more than 100 were injured. The rebels released video of it, but CNN wasn't able to independently verify these images.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: But the reports kept trickling out and now both Britain and France say that soil samples indicate, quote, "some sort of chemical weapons."

And yesterday the head of Israel's military intelligence, Brigadier General Itai Brun, delivered this bombshell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIGADIER GENERAL ITAI BRUN, ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORATE (through translator): According to our professional assessment, the regime has used deadly chemical weapons against armed rebels on a number of occasions in the past few months.

For instance, on March 19th, 2013, victims suffered from shrunken pupils, foaming from the mouth and other symptoms which indicate the use of deadly chemical weapons. The type of chemical weapons was likely sarin as well as neutralizing and non-lethal chemical weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: But Syria today has denied any use of chemical weapons, calling them "immoral." The question, though, remains: has President Obama's red line been crossed? It seems that all the world capitals are now in briefing lockdown. No one will speak officially to us about the exact nature of the chemical weapons evidence.

Here's U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sharing how the Israeli government is now officially shying away from the assessment of its own military intelligence chief.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: I talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning from here. I think it's fair for me to say that he was not in a position to confirm that in the conversation that I had.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So while America stays on the sidelines, looking for definitive proof, the leader of the Syrian opposition forces tells me he has that proof. I spoke to him just a short time ago as he was headed back into Syria to bring that evidence out to show the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: General Idriss, welcome to the program.

Thank you for joining me.

GEN. SALIM IDRISS, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE FREE SYRIAN ARMY: Thank you.

Thank you.

AMANPOUR: I want to know whether you can confirm whether the Syrian government forces have used chemical weapons, sarin particularly, as Israel says?

IDRISS: Yes. I can confirm that the tubes of the meridim (ph) used in the chemical weapons many, many times. They used the chemical weapons against the Old City in Homs. And they used it repeatedly in Aleppo, again, the -- in Aleppo, in many places, they used it in Khan Asal and in - - and in Sheikh Maqsoud and another time they used chemical weapons in -- at Otaiba, near the markets (ph).

AMANPOUR: All right.

IDRISS: And the kind -- and the kinds of the chemical weapons that were used is some gases, some poisonous gases.

AMANPOUR: Can you tell me exactly what evidence you have, because, obviously, there is a confusion about what's been used and what the evidence is.

IDRISS: The evidence is simply we took some samples of the soil and of blood and the injured people were observed by doctors. And the samples were tested it was very clear that the regime used the chemical weapons.

AMANPOUR: OK, you say you took soil samples and blood samples from victims, plus they were --

IDRISS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: -- checked by doctors.

Where did these soil --

IDRISS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: -- and blood samples go?

Were they given to the West?

Were they given to Britain, to France?

Who knows the results of these tests?

IDRISS: Yes. Yes. My doctors, who are taking care about the injured, told me that they sent these samples to other parties, to other parties who are observing the struggle in Syria. And I can't now tell you which parties. But the result of testing these samples are very clear.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you specifically, because Israel, a senior military officer in Israel has said that, according to their assessment, chemical weapons were used. Britain and France have said that they have given evidence to the United Nations from soil samples.

Is -- how do you think Israel got this information or Britain and France?

IDRISS: Yes, Israel can have this information because there are many, many members of security services who are now very active in Syria, inside Syria, because, as you know, there is a fight and there is no control of the regime on many, many places.

I think that Israel --- one of these countries who has security members inside Syria now.

AMANPOUR: Do you mean Mossad?

Do you mean special forces?

IDRISS: Yes, I mean Mossad. Mossad is one of the most famous security services in the world. And I don't think that they are now away from what is going on in Syria.

AMANPOUR: So you believe they're there.

I have to ask you --

IDRISS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: -- because there are also allegations by the Syrian government that the rebels, that the opposition forces have also used chemical weapons.

IDRISS: No, that is just a kind of propaganda. The regime tries to say that the FSA and the opposition have chemical weapons. And I can very clearly tell you that we don't have chemical weapons and we don't like to have such kind of weapons.

We don't have traditional weapons.

AMANPOUR: What do you know about U.S. plans to intervene if they do discover that they've been used?

IDRISS: I -- I don't know any information about the plan of USA, what they will do when they discover and when they have evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons.

But I think they said that is a red line for the regime.

But we know in Syria that the regime really used the chemical weapons. And the -- of course, we don't like any kind of intervention. But they have a lot of tools.

And they can prevent the regime from using these kind of weapons and from using Scud missiles against the liberated areas in Syria.

AMANPOUR: Let me move on to the issue of Al Qaeda forces. How bad is it for your cause and for the cause of the opposition that al-Nusra Front, which is a very professional fighting force, according to everybody, is joined with Al Qaeda?

Isn't that bad for the opposition?

IDRISS: That is -- yes, that is for sure. That is for sure. And I think the regime -- the regime in Damascus is supporting such kind of announcement because the regime is trying from the beginning of the revolution to show the Western countries there is -- that he is fighting against Al Qaeda.

And he tries to ignore all battalions and the brigades of the FSA who are fighting for democracy and for freedom in Syria.

AMANPOUR: General Idriss, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

IDRISS: Thank you.

Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And now let's listen again to what President Obama has said about the issue of chemical weapons. He said it in his visit to Israel just last month.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The broader point is that once we establish the facts, I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game changer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So I want to turn now to David Sanger, who's the chief Washington correspondent for "The New York Times," who's been covering this issue closely and joins me now from Jerusalem.

David, welcome.

So the Israelis, well, the head of --

DAVID SANGER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": (Inaudible) Christiane. Great to be back with you.

AMANPOUR: It's really good to see you, because this is so important to get straight.

You were at the conference where the brigadier general basically said, "We believe that sarin gas has been used." The U.S. is saying, as far as they know, it's just a low confidence assessment. They don't really have the proof.

What's going on here?

SANGER: It's a little bit difficult to tell, Christiane, because the brigadier general, when he gave his presentation, made a set of assertions and the IDF, which he represents, the Israel Defense Forces, he is the lead agency within Israel to make the kind of assessments.

But he did not give us a sense of what direct evidence they had other than the open sores evidence, which would be photographs of people who he described as frothing at the mouth some and showing the symptoms that would be associated with the use of sarin gas.

But that is not the same as having the actual samples or having some of the kind of biological evidence that your opposition leader, when you were speaking to him on the phone, was discussing.

And we don't understand the chain of evidence, in other words, how things may have moved from the -- from the battlefields, from Aleppo and so forth, to the West. So even in background interviews, I've found that Israeli officials have been a little bit vague on this.

Now what's been interesting today is we've gone back and tried to talk to more people about this, is that they're not backing away from the IDF's conclusion. I haven't found any Israeli official who said that they were uncomfortable with the conclusion itself.

I have found some who were very uncomfortable with the fact that the IDF made this pronouncement. And I think that may have been what was behind Secretary Kerry's conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

AMANPOUR: Right.

SANGER: It's clear that the Israelis don't want to seem to be jamming the U.S.

AMANPOUR: Right. So the question I guess is two things: you heard General Idriss basically assert and assume that Israeli agents in some form or fashion amongst many others are in Syria gathering evidence.

Do you get a sense from your reporting in Israel that even though they didn't show specific biological or other evidence that they are gathering evidence from inside there? And furthermore, do you get a sense that the reluctance to, you know, confirm what General Brun said, it's political or is it factual?

SANGER: I have the sense that the reluctance for the prime minister's office to confirm it is largely political. But they may also be looking for confirmation from other agencies within Israel or outsiders who may have a better technical capability, though Israel's is pretty good.

I don't have an understanding of how the material was gathered, in other words, was it Israeli agents? Was it Americans? Was it outsiders? We do know from some of our other reporting that the CIA had been involved in attempting to obtain some samples.

But we don't know whether or not they've been successful with that. And certainly given the magnitude of the decision President Obama would have to make, he wants to make sure that the evidence is extremely clear.

AMANPOUR: Right.

SANGER: And right now, given the small scale of the attack, it may not be clear enough to meet his standards.

AMANPOUR: Well, exactly. The White House is busy saying that we simply don't have conclusive evidence right now. But you heard the president, you know, several times, and just lately in Israel, talk about it being a game-changer if that evidence was presented.

In what way, from your reporting, what do you think they would do? Is there any clarity on that?

SANGER: Well, there's a little bit and there are extensive contingency plans which the United States has discussed with its allies, its NATO allies, with Israel and others, to go in and secure chemical weapons sites if they believe that they were in danger of falling into the hands of Hezbollah, into the hands of al-Nusra or other Al Qaeda related groups and so forth.

But securing it and getting rid of the chemical weapons are two very different things, Christiane. And I don't think necessarily that people have an appreciation of how difficult it is to rid yourself of chemical weapons. In an odd way, it's a lot easier to go in and get rid of nuclear weapons. Once you collect them up and render them safe, you can put them on an airplane and fly them out.

The case of chemical weapons, you run the risk of causing exactly the disaster you were trying to prevent. If some of the casks (ph) they are in are leaky, if, in the course of moving it, you end up losing some of it, you can cause a much wider disaster.

Remember, the United States had fairly large chemical weapons stores and has been burning them off, getting rid of them all. And that process has taken more than a decade.

AMANPOUR: An incredible story to keep following, David Sanger. Thanks very much for joining me.

And when we come back, we'll take another look at the Boston Marathon bombing and to the fallout for Muslims living here in America.

But before we take a break, one last glimpse of Syria, where necessity is the mother of invention. Now this man used to be a farmer.

But in the past few months, with Syria's oil fields falling into the hands of the opposition, he and others like him have jumpstarted their own very basic refinery operation. They buy barrels of crude oil from the rebels and then they turn it into fuel to sell to the local people. At least one business in Syria is booming. We'll be right back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

When the bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon last Monday, Pakistani doctor Haider Javed Warraich was eating lunch at a restaurant nearby. As a doctor his first reaction, of course, was to help the injured.

But then his mind took a sharp turn somewhere else. He realized that he was a potential suspect. He wrote his thoughts about this in an op-ed for "The New York Times," saying that "as a 20-something Pakistani male with dark stubble, would I not fit the bill? I remember feeling grateful that I wasn't wearing a backpack."

He called home to tell his family that he was OK but purposely didn't speak in his native language, Urdu, for fear that it would raise suspicion. The Muslim community in Boston and across the country has strongly condemned the violence. And yet still, all these years after 9/11, the burden of association remains indeed a heavy one.

Now Haider Javed Warraich joins me from Boston.

First of all, thank you very much for joining me.

It was incredibly brave to have written what you did so fast out of the gate.

Why did you feel compelled to do that?

HAIDER JAVED WARRAICH, PAKISTANI DOCTOR: Christiane, first of all, thank you for having me on the show.

I was pretty close to the events. And as you've -- as I've highlighted in my op-ed, it was something that struck really close to my heart. Even though my initial response was that of fear, I did have these -- this paranoia that I would, in fact, be a possible suspect as well.

It was a heavy day; it was a very emotional day. And right before I was about to retire, my wife actually convinced me that you should really put this down into words, because she felt and I feel as well that this was a story that needed to be told.

AMANPOUR: And how, you know, weird was it for you as a doctor not to have that be your first impulse, to go and help?

WARRAICH: Well, my first impulse, Christiane, really was just to -- because I didn't know what had happened, was to secure myself and the life of my wife. And then as that fear sort of -- fear washed off, then I was able to think about other things. I did think about how I could help, and I contacted my hospital. I'm working in the medical ICU. And I identified how best I could be of service.

But then these other thoughts did sort of make it complicated about my thoughts about being able to go back to the site itself.

AMANPOUR: Now it has turned out that the Tsarnaev brothers are, in fact, Muslim. And although the Muslim community across the United States has condemned them, what do you feel about that fact today?

WARRAICH: Christiane, when I first -- when I first heard that these two brothers were of Muslim origin, again, at that point it wasn't clear about what their motivations were. It made me very, very angry. It made me very angry and very disappointed.

I was disappointed that the Muslims who live in the United States and around the world have been trying very hard, especially since 9/11, to show everyone else that they are, in fact, peace-loving people, that they are willing to cooperate and do everything that they can on their parts to do away with these -- with the stereotypes and do away with the fears that other people may have.

The acts, the atrocities that these two brothers have committed have pushed us back. And it's almost like they have to start from scratch again. And it made me really angry, because this country, these people have taken care of these two brothers and their families.

In fact, it's now being revealed that at some point they were on welfare as well. The fact that they would think about hurting these very people is just something that I can't reconcile with.

AMANPOUR: You know, it seems to me, from watching what happened after 9/11 and after this, in fact, the people around the United States are more -- are -- they're not rushing to judge the whole Muslim community. And to your op-ed, I know that you got several reactions. I just want to read one of them.

Just a few who posted reaction, "Just so you know, there are many of us who empathize and want you to know how much we appreciate having you in Boston and the U.S."

Does that give you hope?

WARRAICH: It does give me a lot of hope, Christiane. I think everyone, especially in the wake of these incidents, the role of the Internet has been highlighted as something that can be used to spread terror tactics and all sorts of things.

But I've experienced a different side of that. I've experienced that people in the United States, people around the world, use the Internet as a way to reach out to others, as a way to express empathy.

And I have received a lot of empathy and a lot of kindness from the people of this city and this country, whether they are based here or whether they're traveling around the world. And I think that that -- this is what makes the American people strong. And this is what it's going to heal the divides that are -- that are certainly being created by individuals such as the Tsarnaev brothers.

AMANPOUR: And lastly, I need to ask you, you work in the ICU of the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. That is where 11 or so of the seriously injured are being treated. It is also where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is right now.

How do you feel about all of that?

WARRAICH: Christiane, right now, what we are -- what I am focused on and what everyone in the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center is focused on is trying to take care of the patients that they are responsible for.

These are -- these are -- these are times that are, in some ways, unprecedented. But in some ways, this is business as usual. Patients are here; we are treating them. And I'm happy to say that all of the victims are now, at least the ones who are in the Beth Israel Deaconess, are now out of critical condition. And that is what we are really focused on at this point.

AMANPOUR: Haider, thank you so much indeed for joining me.

WARRAICH: Thank you for having me.

AMANPOUR: Thank you.

And after a break, fighting terror is serious business, of course. But the hub of America's counterterrorism battle is turning it into child's play. We'll explain when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program. And it is worth reminding as we talk about the Boston Marathon bombing and other terrorist plots that recently this week that Toronto plot that law enforcement said was an Al Qaeda affiliated plot to blow up a train going from Canada to the United States, well, that plot was exposed and disrupted by a imam in the Muslim community in Canada.

And now, a final thought: the FBI has taken some heat for its handling of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the suspected number one in the Boston Marathon bombing. But imagine a world where U.S. intelligence is seeking new recruits on the playground.

This is the official kids' website of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, the little-known government agency that serves as the central knowledge bank on terrorist information. That's right. It keeps track of all the terror-related data collected by the FBI, the CIA and the Pentagon.

But it also reaches out to children with cartoon characters Like Beaker the Bald Eagle. And there are interactive games, like this word search, where kids are asked to snoop out words like "terrorism," "radicalism," "extremist."

Although its budget is a fraction of the $50 billion allocated to all national intelligence programs, the NCTC has been given sweeping powers by the Obama administration with extraordinary access to government data on ordinary Americans, including travel records, loan applications, even the names of families hosting foreign exchange students, all in an effort to spot terrorists before they can strike.

Meantime, the next generation of counterterrorists is receiving basic training. And that's it for tonight's program. You can always follow us on our website and on Facebook.

END