Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Too Much Information?; Fighting for Freedom in Belarus; Imagine a World

Aired June 05, 2014 - 14:00   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.

It was exactly one year ago that Edward Snowden began his massive data drop with revelations of America's most closely held secrets. And he

kicked off a row that still rages on about whether blanket NSA surveillance was a vital national security tool -- or was it a terrible excess?

What is for sure is that the revelations have undermined trust in America, both at home and around the world. Today in Brussels, President

Obama met with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel just as German prosecutors opened an investigation into the NSA tapping of her mobile

phone.

It wasn't just governments, though; it was the American people and online giants, too, like Google and Facebook.

Edward Snowden has changed the landscape of digital privacy, jumpstarting some surveillance reforms by the U.S. government and by

private companies.

Joining me now to discuss all this is General Keith Alexander, who was director of the NSA under Presidents Bush and Obama, and who to this day

insists that Snowden has caused more damage to national security than any leaker in history.

General Alexander, welcome to the program.

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER, FORMER NSA DIRECTOR: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: Let me first start by asking you about the German investigation.

Do you think this investigation will undermine and disrupt the vital intelligence sharing and cooperation that Germany and the United States do

together?

ALEXANDER: I don't think so. I hope not. I think that cooperation is absolutely vital,

especially for Germany, because the United States provides so much intelligence, especially on the terrorism front, to protect Germany and our

other European allies.

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: And presumably Germany and others in Europe provide vital intelligence to you. And you need that.

ALEXANDER: That's correct. It goes both ways. But I think on the terrorism front, I think that's where they really look to the United States

for help, because we have a global reach and it's something that we do provide. It's an honor and privilege to do that.

I think as we look at our relationship with these countries from places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we've forged great partnerships.

I think what we have to do is reset what's going on in all this area and step back and say, what's our future? How do we work together? How do

these partnerships go?

I think that it's gone off track.

AMANPOUR: OK. I get that. And that's interesting to hear you say that. So now that you are out of government, you're out of the bubble, so

to speak, can you tell me honestly whether you get the reset that is needed to regain the trust of the American people and the trust of the world?

Do you get it?

ALEXANDER: I'm not talking about taking the programs off the table. I think what we've done a terrible job in is explaining what those programs

do.

You know that all the review groups that have looked at what NSA has done has found out that it's legal; it's what they're authorized and it's

effective.

You can see what the presidential review group has done, what Judge Pauley found. In each case, everyone has is substantiated that this is the

right approach.

AMANPOUR: OK, well --

(CROSSTALK)

ALEXANDER: -- go ahead.

AMANPOUR: Sorry. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but I need to ask you and interrupt you there because, you know, you have told the

surveillance court that the core tracking program was vital and legal. But these two groups that you just now mentioned, the review group, the Privacy

and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, have concluded that the program was unnecessary and should be discontinued.

ALEXANDER: When you're trying to solve a terrorist puzzle, we're going to give our analysts some tools. It's like solving the "Jeopardy" or

"Wheel of Fortune." You get a number -- a set of letters that you can guess.

Each of those letters are tools. One of those tools is the metadata program. One is the content. There are terrorist financing. There are a

series of programs; each of those help us build the picture.

And if you start taking some of those off the table, the question is when does it become too difficult for the analysts to conclude what

happened?

That's how 9/11 occurred.

AMANPOUR: All right.

ALEXANDER: So what we did in developing these, we came up with a metadata program in 2000 to help us see and connect the dots so that what

we do in foreign intelligence could be brought forward to what the FBI does domestically. That's what these programs do.

AMANPOUR: All right. Let's drill down a little bit.

First and foremost, you have written an opinion column in "USA Today." And I want to quote from it.

You have said that, "Over the past year, we have watched as terrorists and our adversaries learn from the information that Snowden provided and

changed their M.O. His disclosures tipped our hand. As a result, it's unlikely that we'll be able to maintain the successes of the past 13 years

in detecting and stopping terrorist attacks."

And obviously you go on.

Tell me exactly -- give me an exact example of how that is the case.

Where do you see that?

ALEXANDER: Well, we have seen exact cases, but I can't reveal classified information here. But we do have facts of where they have

changed their methodology. We see that in Al Qaeda branches, in the Arabian Peninsula.

We see it in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We're seeing this around the world and they are changing.

And the consequence -- if you look also in that op-ed, we talk about the number and growth of terrorist casualties: 2012 was about 11,000

killed; 2013, almost 20,000, a little over 20,000. It's growing. We are concerned about it.

AMANPOUR: Some who know you have been quoted as saying -- and I will read -- that "People in the intelligence community in general and certainly

Alexander don't understand that the strategic value of having a largely unified country and a long-term trust in the intelligence business. That

is the strategic value that's vital," said a former intelligence officer that has worked with you.

So again, I ask you, do you get that the trust has been broken?

ALEXANDER: Yes. And I think, you know, to be completely candid on this, part of it is we haven't defended ourselves well publicly. You know,

we got way behind in the media on this in part because we were concerned that we'd reveal things that would hurt our nation.

As a consequence, the media took off with a lot of facts or information that wasn't factually correct.

So I think what we have to do is we do need a debate.

Where should the line be on civil liberties, privacy, security?

And I don't think there's a line; there's a balance.

How do we do both?

And what we have right now is a set of standards that have been set by the White House and the administration, by Congress and by the courts.

So what we're arguing is do they have it right?

Because what NSA is doing is actually doing what we've been asked to do to defend this country.

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: OK --

ALEXANDER: -- it's a dangerous world.

AMANPOUR: It is indeed. And there are lots of points there to drill down on.

But first and foremost, I want to ask you about the surveillance of American citizens. That is what has wrecked your standing and that is what

has got the world and America up in arms.

First and foremost, the DNI, as you know, testified to Congress that the NSA was not collecting information about millions of Americans and that

turned out to be false.

So therefore I want to ask you about -- I'm sure you've seen this PBS program, "Frontline" program, called "the program." I want to play you a

series of sound bites from the NSA engineers and analysts who put this together.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM BINNEY, FORMER NSA TECHNICAL DIRECTOR: The whole idea was to build networks around the world of everybody and who they communicated

with. Then you could isolate all the groups of terrorists; once you could do that, you could use that metadata to select that information from all

those tens of terabytes going by.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But to make sure the NSA would not spy on U.S. citizens, Binney and the other analysts had built-in privacy protections.

THOMAS DRAKE, FORMER NSA SENIOR EXECUTIVE: If you knew that it was U.S. person related, it would be automatically encrypted. That was part of

the design of ThinThread.

J. KIRK WIEBE, FORMER NSA SENIOR ANALYST: It had a data privacy section. That was working very well, protecting citizens and innocent

people by encrypting the data, not allowing analysts to look at it even.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So that seemed like you could have your cake and eat it, too. You could do your vital surveillance work and protect the legal

rights of private Americans citizens, except for right after that, after 9/11, President Bush and the -- basically the administration ended those

protections.

Why did you have to do that?

Why did you end those protections?

ALEXANDER: It's not Binney or the engineers determining how to protect the privacy of U.S. persons. I think it must be the court. And in

this case, I think the protections that we offer U.S. persons is far greater than what they're talking about in that clip.

Specifically, you're not authorized to look in the data unless you have reasonable, articulable suspicion, a level of suspicion that the phone

number you're going to look at is associated with al Qaeda or related groups. And, today, that has to go through a federal judge. Then and only

then can you look in it.

AMANPOUR: You talk about the courts and legality. As you very well know, there was a very dramatic showdown with Attorney General John

Ashcroft -- in his hospital bed, no less -- where he simply refused to recertify this program.

So it is still even within the government a very, very contentious issue. And it obviously has jump-started reforms which are obviously

necessary.

ALEXANDER: You ask some great questions, but I think the concern I have when you start to ask these questions is we've got to have a way of

putting the facts out so the American people know, because I do think an attack is going to come and hit us or Europe. And then people are going to

swing this right around.

Nobody's been able to come up with a better fix. We put every one of those -- we've talked to Congress, we've talked to the courts.

So what I would put on the table here is, look at what has happened. Look at what they're trying to do with us or to us.

And then say, so where do we go from here?

And so my comment is I'll give you a trust plus one. I will show you every time I look in that database -- I will audit it 100 percent. And we

do, 100 percent auditability and accountability. Nobody else in government can match that.

AMANPOUR: All right.

ALEXANDER: And so we haven't been found making a mistake or searching on a U.S. person's data in the lifetime of this program. But the

assumption is we are, and that assumption is wrong.

AMANPOUR: But let me ask you this. You obviously collected a lot of stuff that was vital information from around the world. You collected all

this evidence of Syria amassing chemical weapons and you probably knew that they were going to use them.

Why then was that information was not used to stop the use of it?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think -- and I need to make sure I answer this correctly. I don't want to give up information.

Our government and the policymakers take information like that and act upon it. It may not be publicly visible, but the reality is there's good

people working that and they work it very hard.

AMANPOUR: Except nothing was done to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

ALEXANDER: Well, I think there was actions taken at different policy levels, and now you're into the policy decision on that. I'm not a

policymaker, or wasn't. Still not.

But when you think about it, the question is what's the right next step to make?

And I think the administration, the policymakers, sit down and they talk to our allies and say, "So what are we going to do?"

And I think the issue is how do you keep Assad doing it right?

Sometimes you get the information in time to stop something; sometimes it's after the fact and you can go to him with this and say, "Here are red

lines." I think all of those things that you could think of that are -- that the administration would do responsibly, it's my experience they do

take those on. And they work with our allies.

AMANPOUR: Well, we're haunted still by the use of those chemical weapons in that ongoing war.

General Alexander, thank you very much for joining me.

ALEXANDER: Thank you, Christiane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

xxx

But let me ask you this. You obviously collected a lot of stuff that was vital information from around the world. You collected all this

evidence of Syria amassing chemical weapons and you probably knew that they were going to use them. Why wasn't that kind of information put out into

the public or put out and acted upon?

ALEXANDER: That information, classified information that we get, we obviously don't share because, if we did put that out in the public, then

the adversaries that we collected on would know how we did it.

AMANPOUR: All right, let me put it a different way. You're right.

ALEXANDER: Here's a great case --

AMANPOUR: You're right. Let me put it a different way. Why then was that information was not used to stop the use of it?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think, and I need to make sure I answer this correctly. I don't want to give up information.

Our government and the policymakers take information like that and act upon it. It may not be visible to the U.S. people and to the media, but my

experience in sitting in with the administration, the policymakers, is they take information like that, they take it very seriously. They share it

with our allies and they do take action with it.

And so the answer is it may not be publicly visible, but the reality is there's good people working that and they work it very hard.

AMANPOUR: Except nothing was done to stop Assad using chemical weapons.

ALEXANDER: Well, I think there was -- action is taken at different policy levels, and now you're into the policy decision on that. I'm not a

policymaker, or wasn't. Still not. But when you think about it, the question is what's the right next step to make? And I think the

administration, the policymakers, sit down and they talk to our allies and say, "So what are we going to do?"

And I think the issue is how do you keep Assad doing it right? Sometimes you get the information in time to stop something; sometimes it's

after the fact and you can go to him with it and say, "Here, a red line." I think that all of those things that you could think of that are -- that

the administration would do responsibly, it's my experience they do take those on. And they work with our allies.

AMANPOUR: Well, we're haunted still by the use of those chemical weapons in that ongoing war.

General Alexander, thank you very much for joining me.

ALEXANDER: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: And while the NSA says it's fighting a cyber war on terror, there is increasing evidence of parallel online hostilities in the violent

conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Researchers have found a sharp uptick in hacking attacks between the countries, not only from large organizations but so-called lone wolf

patriotic hackers. As we know, resistance comes in many, many forms. The arty type in Europe's last dictatorship after a break.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

President Obama and fellow G7 leaders meeting in Brussels are warning Russia, whom they suspended from the G8, of more sanctions because of

Ukraine and they're demanding that he stop the separatists, who are now dangerously close to full-scale civil war in the East.

Now Ukraine borders Belarus, Russia's closest ally and Europe's last dictatorship. Alexander Lukashenko has ruled there with an iron fist for

20 years, stamping out any dissent.

My next guest, Natalia Kaliada, is an outspoken critic of Lukashenko through theater. And that has forced her into exile. But her drama

company still performs in Belarus underground and of course at great risk. She joins me here in the studio now.

Welcome, Natalia, to this program.

NATALIA KALIADA, FOUNDING ARTISTIC DIRECTOR, BELARUS FREE THEATRE: Thank you. it's a great pleasure to be here.

AMANPOUR: Describe to me what it was about your plays that forced you leave, about the crackdown?

KALIADA: It's not about the plays; it's about the level of dictatorship in Europe. Whatever your do in Belarus becomes prohibited.

You will choose either topic, it would be sexual minorities, World War II, economic situation, political kidnappings, everything is prohibited.

It was the 19th of December of 2010 when we had the presidential election -- so-called one -- and --

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: And he was reelected again.

KALIADA: If it's possible to say so, we have him in a joke, you know, the head of electoral committee's coming to Lukashenko and saying that we

have bad news and good news.

And he said, "Start from good news."

"You are the president again."

"So what bad news?"

"Nobody voted for you."

So this is exactly the situation that has happened in Belarus unfortunately.

AMANPOUR: So your plays were raided; is that what happened? Your performances were raided?

Did you get arrested?

KALIADA: We got arrested with all our spectators, our audience, underground in Belarus. And whatever was happening at the very beginning

in 2005, it would be a few times a year. Now it's happening on a permanent basis. And recently single show directed by Maria Sozonawa (ph)

was raided --

AMANPOUR: And that's just Chekhov.

KALIADA: It's Chekhov. And when KGB arrived, they said we will not allow you to organize a second Maidan freedom square in Ukraine. And it's

anti-governmental show.

So it's existence of people who are against the dictatorship, this is the question.

AMANPOUR: And what about then your troupe that's still there -- and they are trying to put these plays on.

How terrifying is that for them, not just for them, but for the people who come to watch as well?

KALIADA: Our actors there, absolutely unique people and managers, some of them, they have few cases and if there will be additional cases,

they would be criminal case. And they might end up in jail.

What happened now in -- with people, there are very brave people, dedicated to the theater. And they perform on a weekly basis.

AMANPOUR: In secret locations.

KALIADA: In secret locations. We lost our underground facility, the owner was threatened that the place would be completely leveled if we do

not move out. And it was necessary for actors to do that in order not to put the person under danger. Otherwise, it would be Ai Weiwei situation --

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: The artist-activist in China, of course. And again, we're talking in the shadow of the anniversary of Tiananmen Square as well.

What about you? It became too dangerous for you and your husband to stay and you basically came here to England for political asylum.

KALIADA: We were smuggled out of Belarus right after the presidential election and crackdown when around 2,000 people got arrested. All our

friends, they ended up in jail; they're still in jail. Just recently in May, when it was ice hockey world championship that we tried to boycott or

relocate to democratic country, 300 people got arrested.

Soldiers were cleaning streets. And now, yes, I mean, we are in exile but we understand that this is the only possibility for us to attract

attention to people of Belarus.

AMANPOUR: And actually, you have attracted attention, because you mentioned the world ice hockey championships. Apparently this is very sort

of close to President Lukashenko's heart. But a whole group of very well- known actors and performers and international celebrities are basically calling for a boycott.

Is that going to happen?

KALIADA: Unfortunately, it already took place. And it was amazing that Vaclav Havel, President Vaclav Havel, who was a great support and

patron of the company and the whole country, he was that person, alongside with some supporters who'd started this campaign.

Unfortunately, Rene Fasel, president of international federation of ice hockey, didn't care about human rights. And he is just serving the

last dictator.

AMANPOUR: You now serve your theater here in London. You take it around; you've got a new performance coming out at the Young Vic here.

But what more do you think and do you want the world to do about this?

Everybody is very, you know, keen to make sure that Ukraine survives this assault on its freedoms whole and intact.

Have people forgotten about Belarus?

KALIADA: I believe it's a very complicated for European and American politicians to accept especially with the Europeans, that there is the last

dictatorship right on their doorstep.

It's two and 40 minutes -- two hour and 40 minutes' flight from London to Minsk. You get to completely another reality. They escort our friends;

have kidnapped and killed; people now in jail are tortured. Ongoing arrests, nothing -- I mean, no freedom of expression at all.

And if Belarus issue is not solved, just be ready. The dictatorship is coming back in the face of Putin. But it would be absolutely another

horrible situation when the whole region would get to the war, back to the Cold War. So it's necessary to stop Belarusian dictatorship in order to

stop everything that is happening in that region.

AMANPOUR: Natalya Kaliada, thank you for reminding us.

Thanks for being here.

KALIADA: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: And as we talk today about resistance through art, as you've just heard, and cyber wars fought through fiberoptic cables and

search engines, the more traditional engines of war were being prepared on this very day 70 years ago. Landing craft, tanks and artillery were ready

for a surprise invasion of German occupied France by the Allied forces.

But of all the forces raised against him, who did Hitler consider the most dangerous woman in Europe? We'll find out after a break.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, Queen Elizabeth crossed the English Channel today to commemorate the 70th anniversary of D-Day and the

liberation of Europe. Now imagine a world where the royal family stayed home and inspired an embattled nation.

The year was 1940 and Britain stood alone against the Nazi blitzkrieg. History tells us that one man, Winston Churchill, stood between Hitler and

victory, rousing the nation to battle stations with speeches that still stir the blood.

But Churchill wasn't alone. King George VI and his wife, Queen Elizabeth, refused to leave Buckingham Palace and despite calls to send

their two young daughters to Canada, Princess Elizabeth and her sister, Princess Margaret, remained a mere 22 miles away at Windsor Castle.

Said the queen, "The girls will not leave unless I do. I will not leave unless the king does. And the king will not leave under any

circumstances whatsoever."

And when the bombs fell during the blitz, eventually killing 30,000 Londoners, the king and queen would venture out, often to the hardest-hit

areas in the East End, to comfort and keep up morale. And when finally Buckingham Palace was hit, the queen said that it allowed her to at least

look those East Enders in the eye.

No wonder Hitler called her the most dangerous woman in Europe. When final victory came, crowds stormed the gates of Buckingham Palace to cheer

the royal family as they stepped onto the balcony, insisting that Churchill stand with them.

And tomorrow we'll be broadcasting live from the Normandy beaches where Allied troops, most of them just boys, gave their last ounce of

devotion in the cause of freedom.

And that's it for our program tonight. Remember you can always contact us at our website, amanpour.com, and follow me on Twitter and

Facebook. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

END