Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Independent Israeli Journalist Emmanuelle Elbaz- Phelps; Interview with Director James Cameron; Interview with Former U.S. Energy Secretary and Nuclear Threat Initiative Co-Chair and CEO Ernest Moniz; Interview with Former Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jennifer Peyton; Interview with Former Immigration Judge George Pappas. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired August 06, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): It is still necessary to complete the defeat of the enemy in Gaza.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Netanyahu considers a total takeover of Gaza, but is the tide of public opinion turning in Israel.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CAMERON, DIRECTOR: The people that survived, that are our most precious witnesses for the most horrific thing that I can imagine. And I
can imagine a lot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- 80 years since America dropped the atom bomb first on Hiroshima and then on Nagasaki. The acclaimed director, James Cameron, and
the former energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, tell me why it is vital to remember and to raise awareness.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE PAPPAS, FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGE: If you have no justice and you only have enforcement, you no longer have a democracy, you have an
authoritarian state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- is yet another vital pillar of democracy under threat? Two U.S. immigration judges sound the alarm after being summarily dismissed by
the Trump administration.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
80 years ago today America dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and then on Nagasaki, and the whole world was changed forever. Back in 2015, one
survivor, Miyake Nobuo, told this program about the moment he saw a huge white flash.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIYAKE NOBUO, HIROSHIMA SURVIVOR (through translator): At that moment, there was a huge bang, a blast from above, and I was knocked to the ground.
I'd been directly hit by the bomb, and I thought that was the end of me, but I was still conscious. I opened my eyes slightly, but everything was
black and I couldn't see anything. All of the houses around me had been destroyed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Just three days later, as we said, the same white flash hit Nagasaki. The two weapons killed over 200,000 people from the blast and
from their radioactive legacy. Today, as the number of survivors dwindles so too do the memories and the warning. But the mayor of Hiroshima says,
the world must remember and not allow nuclear weapons states to become the norm.
Later in the program we talk to the acclaimed director, James Cameron, about memory and awareness through film and culture.
But first, today's war in the Middle East. A whole new threat from Israel against Gaza and to the surviving hostages. A plan for a full military
takeover reportedly being pushed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but reportedly opposed by his chief of military staff who called the decision a
trap for his forces and a possible death sentence for those remaining hostages. Meantime, President Trump seems to be giving Israel a green
light.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We are there now trying to get people fed. That's what I'm focused on. As far as the rest of it, I really can't say.
That's going to be pretty much up to Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: As photos of widespread hunger in Gaza continue to spark international backlash, a growing number of Israelis are taking to the
streets and also speaking out. Emmanuelle Elbaz-Phelps is a French Israeli journalist and she's joining me now from Tel Aviv.
Emmanuelle, welcome to the program. Can I first ask you about -- well, obviously about covering this horrendous situation in your country. But
first, what do you know more, or not, about what Netanyahu, the prime minister, may be proposing? What is a conquest, a takeover?
EMMANUELLE ELBAZ-PHELPS, INDEPENDENT ISRAELI JOURNALIST: Good evening, Christiane, and thank you very much for having me on your show. So, the
question of what is the plan when we hear of conquering Gaza is the question, I think. The last reports coming out of the local media in Israel
are talking about getting into Gaza City and maybe maneuvers there for months, and also other places in the center of the Gaza Street where IDF
has not been acting military way for the last month yet and then maybe pushing out the population towards the south. And we've seen some
evacuation orders given today by IDF to a part of the population in Gaza.
[13:05:00]
The question is that, is this the plan? The plan is supposed to be discussed and voted maybe during the cabinet reunion tomorrow evening in
Israel. We do not know yet if that is the plan that is going to be submit over there. So, we do not know yet exactly what is Prime Minister Netanyahu
pushing for. But we do know, as you said, that the chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, is not keen and doesn't think it's the right way to go, to occupy
the entire Gaza Strip because it would endanger the hostages that remain alive, 20 of them. Because the exception is that the hostages are in this
area of Gaza that have not been conquered and occupied yet by IDF. This is -- we're talking about 25 percent of the Gaza Strip where IDF is officially
not occupying it.
AMANPOUR: So, you mentioned what Chief of Staff Zamir has said and that's been reported, also opposition leader Yair Lapid actually said, I told
Netanyahu the idea of occupying Gaza is a very bad one. The people of Israel are not interested in this war. We will pay too heavy a price for
it. What -- you know, you've been covering not just the war, but the Israeli reaction at home to the war and to the devastation in Gaza now
since October 7th. What are the polls saying or what are people and public opinions saying about a potential full-scale occupation of Gaza?
ELBAZ-PHELPS: I think this is too early to know because what we just discussed that we do not know exactly what the plan is, but also because
it's not adopted yet. We don't know if it's actually going to happen. You know, there is a source now talking to journalists in Israel saying that a
source that is around the prime minister apparently was saying that anything can happen between today and tomorrow, and that Donald Trump, the
U.S. president, as we heard, is talking about a humanitarian plan. So, we don't know what's going to happen for the next 24 hours.
But what we do know is that there are very eloquent voices against any occupation of all the Gaza Strip. And actually, we know from polls and
surveys for the last weeks and months that the majority, close to 70 percent of the population in Israel is asking, demanding an end to the war.
And the reason. It's because the majority of the population in Israel, according to these figures, are convinced that the only way to get the
hostages home, to get the release of the hostages is to go for a deal that will lead to the end of the war. They do not believe that what is called
military pressure is going to be efficient to get the hostages home, and we've seen it has not been until now.
AMANPOUR: So, there is a recent poll by Israel Hayom, which found that 52 percent of Israelis apparently support renewed Jewish settlement in Gaza.
And we also know that the chief of staff and others reportedly are saying that any full-scale occupation and invasion can -- would be lethal for the
remaining hostages.
So, tell me how people are beginning or continuing to try to protest their main demand, which is to bring the hostages home, especially after that
horrendous Hamas release of pictures and video of several -- or at least two of the surviving hostages, looking emaciated beyond words.
ELBAZ-PHELPS: Those videos of Rom Braslavski and Evyatar David, two young men in their 20s that have lost, according to recenter health reports,
around half of their body weight. And Evyatar is actually preparing his own grave, of course, this is propaganda, but it's also happening the way they
look. They're so skinny and so weak. It's horrifying.
The families, of course, are in excruciating agony, but it has been a shock for the population. It has been on every TV broadcasted broadly, of course.
And there is a sense of being hopeless. You've seen the Israelis in the streets, tonight also when we speak and for the last days, and it has been
like that every week over and over again asking for the release of the hostages through a deal, and it's still going on.
But there is a feeling or there is -- what is happening on the ground, that the government is going -- according to the plan it decides the government,
meaning Prime Minister Netanyahu, and not according to the public opinion while he claims that the polls that we're talking about here tonight are
actually fake and fabricated and not showing the real public opinion.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Emmanuelle, there's also a question of not showing the real images of what's actually happening in Gaza. There are also emaciated Gaza
children, women, also adults who also say just like those starving hostages, that they've also lost half their body weight, a lot of them say
that. And I know that it's been really hard to break through in the Israeli media. But tell me about it. Have you noticed a change recently? There was
obviously, last week, a significant change in the world's reaction to what's going on because of all these images coming out and the very real
starvation problem in Gaza. What are Israelis seeing, thinking, saying now that may be changing?
ELBAZ-PHELPS: I think for the sake of this discussion, we have to explain to your audience that in Israel, the society is not living a post-traumatic
event after 7th of October. The Israeli society is living in trauma, is still stuck in October 7th and is stuck for realistic reasons. As we
talked, the hostages, 20 of them alive and 30 not alive, are still in Gaza and there is no possibility for the society to start a healing process
while their loved ones are still held by Hamas in Gaza.
Soldiers are falling in the war and are dying, and this is the grief and the pain of the Israeli society is huge. And that would explain a big part
of why we know from surveys that only 35 percent of Israelis would say that there have been interests in what's going on in Gaza, talking about the
human humanitarian situation.
So, it's of course a low number, but it's not that low, 35 percent. And Israelis, they do not receive, for the last two years, as you do the
pictures and the footage from Gaza on Israeli mainstream media. Of course, it's available on social media. Of course, there are some news shows and
newspaper that are covering Gaza really all day long -- or not maybe all day long, but on a daily basis and that have -- all the information is out
there and there is no censorship.
The censorship is applied in an voluntary or maybe not even conscious way sometimes in a way that is very difficult to talk about the place that your
enemy came from to attack you. But this has been a little bit shifting for the last two weeks, as you said, because the word has been shocked by the
images and they have been also repercussions.
There have been also the talk of Donald Trump saying that he sees the starvation in Gaza, and this is not something that you can fake, and
Israelis heard that. And you have been on -- you -- we heard also the declaration of French President Emmanuel Macron and other countries that
decided that they will or might recognize the Palestinian State. You had to explain to the Israeli public why this diplomatic shift in the world
towards Israel.
And so, it made the talk possible. The discussion came to the table about what's happening in Gaza. And main news programs were showing the images.
And again, it's not that it's not talked about, it's not that people don't know that Gazans are dying during the war, it's just that I think pictures
are lacking, but also the capacity of feeling the pain of the other people.
And you can also ask, is it fair to ask from a people that is so much hurting itself to also feel the pain of another people, that again, is the
place where the enemy came from -- came out and attacked on 7th of October? So, the situation is very complex. And I have -- must add to that something
that matter that you're really active towards it, it's also to try and get the possibility for journalists to enter Gaza?
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ELBAZ-PHELPS: Because as you well know, and you talk about it a lot on your show, journalists are not allowed to enter Gaza, not foreign
journalists and not Israeli journalists if they're not embedded with IDF. Only Palestinians journalists on the ground can do the work and put the
footage out, and this is also affecting the coverage of Gaza.
AMANPOUR: Emmanuelle, we would like to continue this conversation and we will at another time when developments warrant and they do all the time.
But thank you very much for being with us. And of course, we note, a lot of the former Israeli military and security and intelligence officials warning
about what's going on there and against a full-scale occupation of Gaza. We'll have you back. Thank you very much, Emmanuelle. Stay with us. Of
course. We'll be back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Next, we return to the week the world was completely transformed and the nuclear perils we face today. Just last week, Russia rattled that
saber again, prompting President Trump to say that he's repositioning two nuclear submarines. These very real dangers have long been plot twists in
the films of director James Cameron. From "Avatar" to the "Terminator" franchise, Cameron has brought these issues to the forefront of popular
culture.
Now, he's announcing his next project, an adaptation of Charles Pellegrino's new book, "Ghosts of Hiroshima." It describes the horrifying
reality of what the bombs did while also following the story of a survivor of both blasts. I spoke to Cameron and nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz. He
was secretary of energy under President Obama and he was a key negotiator during the Iran Nuclear Agreement. The conversation was hosted by the
Nuclear Threat Initiative, which Moniz now leads.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Gentlemen, welcome to you both. Let me first ask you, James Cameron, what made you so interested and preoccupied by this issue,
particularly obviously by Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
JAMES CAMERON, DIRECTOR: I remember very distinctly, I was quite young. I would've been eight years old during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But I was
just becoming kind of aware of the fact that the world was not this safe little nest that I thought it was, and that there were these truly
existential threats out there.
I remember my father bringing home pamphlets that showed you how to pile sandbags up to create a bomb shelter or fallout shelter in the basement.
And I read those with this kind of growing dismay that this was the true nature of the world. Cut to over 20 years later, and my first film out of
the gate as a filmmaker is the "Terminator," which dealt with this idea of a nuclear holocaust in the future.
I threw -- just for fun, I threw in artificial general intelligence, a machine super intelligence to that story as well. And you know, here we are
in a world where these science fiction -- at the time science fiction themes are actually coming true.
AMANPOUR: Adapting the book, "Ghost of Hiroshima," by Charles Pellegrino, it will be your first, you know, non-"Avatar" feature since "Titanic." What
drew you to that book? What were the stories in that book? What about Charles Pellegrino drew you to it? Tell me.
CAMERON: Well, let me set this, the table for this. I've known Charlie, as I call him, Pellegrino for a long time. He was actually one of our
consultants on "Titanic." He's talked about this book for ages and sent me early versions of it. So, I've read it with interest, great interest a
number of times now. What compels me out of all that and what I think the human hook for understanding this tragedy is, is to follow a handful,
specifically two will be featured of survivors that actually survived not only the Hiroshima blast, but then went to Nagasaki and three days later
were hit again.
[13:20:00]
And these are people who were frankly dumbfounded by the fact that they could have even survived both of these things. And in the case of Tsutomu
Yamaguchi, he, in the latter part of his life, actually traveled the world making public addresses and so on. He was a very practical man. He was an
engineer, shipbuilding engineer. He wasn't a public speaker. He wasn't a particularly imaginative person in that regard, although in later life he
did become an artist as well.
And he spread one very simple message, which is, I've been the recipient of the impact of a nuclear weapon twice, not once, but twice. And I can
forgive that. I can forgive that. And as a result, I believe you, everybody in the audience, you can forgive anything. You can forgive anything. And of
course, what happens, all these conflicts that lead to wars is everybody feels that they're reacting to something that went before and then they
react to that, and then there's a reaction from that, and things go into a feedback loop that ultimately leads to conflict.
But after the fact we question why it even happened in the first place. But in that moment, it made sense. But we have to get past that because there
can never be a moment where using a nuclear weapon makes sense. It doesn't make sense.
So, you asked me about this film. I frankly can't tell you exactly the details of how I could do it, not because I'm hiding anything, but because
I'm just in the process of starting out on the script. But I know a few things. One, I want to follow the double bomb survivors because there's a
true human poignancy to their stories that I think will be powerful for people.
The other thing is that I want to avoid any sort of geopolitical ramifications. It'll just be the stark fact of what it is to experience a
nuclear weapon on the ground. It's only happened twice in human history against human targets. The people that survive that are our most precious
witnesses for the most horrific thing that I can imagine, and I can imagine a lot. I have a very good imagination. But I have a very hard time wrapping
up my mind around what it would be like if these weapons were actually unleashed against us now.
AMANPOUR: So, Secretary, your NTI mean, you're trying to change people's, you know, perspectives and get them serious about this. Do you think it's
hard work? Do you think people have forgotten the idea of what these terrible bombs did and could do again?
ERNEST MONIZ, FORMER U.S. ENERGY SECRETARY AND CO-CHAIR AND CEO, NUCLEAR THREAT INITIATIVE: Well, clearly, we have the end of the Cold War, now,
more than 25 years ago, was a time at which many people, perhaps including myself, incorrectly exhaled as though the risk was passed us. Now, what
we've seen is unfortunately the risk is going back up. The number of weapons is going back up. And I think the -- there remains a false
narrative that the possession of these nuclear weapons is actually making us safer when they're not. That's the narrative I think, ultimately, we
need to change.
And part of that, looking at the scale of those weapons versus, quotes, "conventional weapons." In the United States, we often think of that
terrible bomb in the '90s in Oklahoma City. More recently, we've seen the results of the so-called bunker busters used in the Iran attacks of a few
weeks ago, a month ago. In all those cases, those weapons have explosive power of about two tons of TNT equivalent. The Japanese bombs, we're
talking 15,000, 20,000 tons, and now we're talking a factor of a hundred beyond that.
That led in fact, Harry Truman, who of course ultimately made the decision to drop those bombs in Japan, and like James, I'm not going to take any
political position on the wisdom or not of that, but several years later Harry Truman said, quite correctly, these nuclear weapons, they are not
military weapons. Dropped on a city, they indiscriminately kill combatants, non-combatants women, children, et cetera. They should not be thought of as
military weapons, but as weapons of mass destruction, indiscriminate mass destruction when certainly dropped in an urban center.
[13:25:00]
So, I think that question of context and scale is a very important one to keep in mind. And again, the vividness of film. big screen, small screen,
other cultural avenues, I think, can be very powerful in bringing that home at a very human level.
AMANPOUR: Now, you talked about survivors. So, James, I want to ask you about survivors. First of all, I mean, it's incredible to think that there
were survivors of two bombs. What -- how did they get from Hiroshima to Nagasaki anyway, and why? And secondly, what about the man that you visited
in hospital, also a survivor, and you made a pledge to him I think?
CAMERON: That's absolutely true. So, I'll start with -- I'll do Yamaguchi- san second. He's the one that I actually met in person and I believe he sort of passed a baton, a sacred duty to me. There's another young man that
I wanted -- I want to tell his story, named Kenchi Harata (ph), who was a bit away from the hypo center or the -- or sort of ground zero. When the
bomb went off, he was injured. He fought his way back into a total firestorm.
The city was flattened, it was on fire. He tried to get back to his home where his young bride, they've only been married a few months was -- and he
found -- he was almost unable to identify where his house had been. He spent two days digging through the rubble to confirm that she had been in
fact home when the weapon went off. He still had no idea what was happening. He didn't know that there were -- he didn't know anything about
a nuclear bomb. He just was reacting to what happened.
He found her bones still hot, still, you know, burned. He found a bowl that had been given to them by her parents as a wedding gift. He put her bones
into the bowl. He covered it up with a towel or a shirt, and he got on the train to take it to her parents in Nagasaki. And he got there just in time
to explain to them what had happened, and then there was a second flash. What must have been going through that young man's mind, I cannot even
conceive.
And, you know, this film scares me. I fear making this film. I fear the images that I'm going to have to create, to be honest and to be truthful. I
talked to Steven Spielberg about this. And when he was making "Saving Private Ryan," and you remember that opens with about a 25-minute sequence
of the U.S. forces storming the beach, you know, Normandy -- Omaha Beach.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
CAMERON: And he said, I wanted to use every cinematic trick I could to make it as intense as possible because I knew I would fail to even come
close to what it was really like for those men on that beach. And I think, OK, that's a clue for how to do this. Now, make the film hard to watch.
But as I said, I've made this pledge to this double bomb survivor Tsutomu Yamaguchi. He was lying on his death, but he was dying of cancer, of
course. You know, Yamaguchi told me his story. He knew why I was there, to explore making this film, and he took my hands and he said, I'm done. This
-- I've done everything I can do. I now pass this to you.
And it's a terrible burden in a sense, but I feel that this is a film that I have to make. I don't know if I'm worthy, I don't know, but nobody else
is doing it. So, I'm going to do it. It's that omoiyari principle, you know, that you have to stand up, you have to take action on the behalf of
others. And really, it's for all of us.
AMANPOUR: You know, you said nobody's doing it. I have to do it. So, is that a commentary a little bit? I mean, I'm not trying to get you into a
fight with "Oppenheimer," but they didn't do it. They did it from the other side. The creator of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, the Manhattan
Project, and a forensic look at that side, but stop short of the actual detonation.
CAMERON: I haven't talked to Chris Nolan about this, but I've read what he said about it. You know, we're friends. I'm not going to criticize another
filmmaker's film. "Oppenheimer" was a powerful film. I think -- and I can't speak for him, but if I have to guess, he probably said to himself, that's
a whole other film. I can't do it justice with a scene, just with one scene.
I tried on the -- on "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," that -- my film in 1991, I tried to show what it would look like for a multi megaton weapon to hit
Los Angeles. So, you know, it's possible, but you -- but that was just a glimpse of a -- through a keyhole into a nightmare.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: Secretary Moniz, you, you know, help negotiate the JCPOA after this bombing by Israel in the United States. Some say, some experts say
they may determine that, hang on a second, we've never made the decision to go for a weapon. Now, we might, because we have no deterrence otherwise.
Talk to us a little bit about how paradoxically it -- we could see a world with more nuclear weapons rather than less because of precisely these kinds
of situations.
MONIZ: I think there's certainly a risk of that, but I want -- I would also like to take or point out, in some sense, the opposite. Russia crossed
a red line, in my view, by threatening use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state. But I would point out that did not protect them
from being attacked by Ukraine inside Russia. The drone attacks, et cetera, et cetera.
The -- in the Iran situation -- and again, I'm not going to catch judgment here as to whether or not the military strikes should have happened.
However, I would note that Iran had also crossed a red line. It is not stated often enough that they had 400 kilograms -- more than 400 kilograms
of uranium enriched to more than 60 percent or 60 percent. The focus has always been, oh, well, that's not weapons grade defined as 90 percent
enrichment. It doesn't matter what that means in detail, it's slightly short of it.
But what has not been said is that 60 percent uranium is just as usable in a nuclear explosive, just not quite as efficient. Whether you are in an
ambiguous situation like Iran, I think it is questionable to argue that nuclear weapons have provided you safety and security in those situations.
And I think that's part of the narrative. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons. It did not prevent them from getting into a nasty, shall
we say, military exchange.
So, I think that's the -- the narrative has to be that we want a safer and more secure world for ourselves and our children and our grandchildren, for
ourselves and others on this planet. And that world we believe will be a world where nuclear risks are taken off the table. It will not take all
risks off the table, all security risks, but it will take this particular risk, which has the kinds of consequences that we have been discussing.
AMANPOUR: Well, look, I want to ask you, Secretary Moniz, because -- let me just ask you this because it's quite worrying. J. D. Vance recently
called the military, you know, violence between the nuclear powers, India and Pakistan, quote, "fundamentally, none of our business." Apparently,
Trump did not agree with him, thank goodness, and called them and told them to, you know -- basically told them to stop this.
Can you tell me what kind of diplomacy should be the proper diplomacy right now, and particularly in terms of the only other one we've known, and that
is the Cuban Missile Crisis?
MONIZ: The concern that I have about this recent exchange between Medvedev and and President Trump is the following. I think we need to connect some
dots to understand the risk level. Now, president - ex-President Medvedev made some pretty unfortunate statements. And frankly, I don't fault
President Trump for having a rejoinder.
I'm not sure the one about repositioning nuclear submarines was the best choice. In a time of tension, we run the risk that suppose we have another
accident, I remind you since the Cold War ended, I won't even go back before that time, but since the end of the Cold War, we've already had
incidents in the United States and in Russia of mistaken data, mistaken processes.
Specifically, one of the events, I think it was in 1995, Russia misinterpreted the launching of a scientific rocket in Scandinavia as an
incoming missile from the United States. Well, suppose that misinterpretation of data happened today with tensions high and with
President Trump having said, oh, we're going to have submarines, roughly speaking, just off your coast. That could lead in a very short decision
time, five minutes, to a very unfortunate escalatory big, big mistake. So, that's what worries me.
[13:35:00]
So, the statements that were made by President Trump, if the rules of the game are being followed, it's not a major elevation of risk. My problem is
what happens when the rules are not being followed? When people make big mistakes, as we have had in the past? The United States, since the end of
the Cold War, this wasn't data, we had a mistaken chain of command with nuclear weapons left unguarded in the United States. We've had a nuclear
bomb dropped accidentally by the United States domestically. We've had a training tape in the United States, left in the wrong computer. We've had
all kinds of things.
My problem is, if you create this kind of tense relationship and one of these accidents occurs, you may get the wrong outcome.
AMANPOUR: You know what, as -- you're right, the human factor is so, so important. James Cameron, I want to ask you about, again, culture and
reality. The book, "The Ghost of Hiroshima," discussed the overlap between sci-fi and reality. H. G. Wells inspired the physicist to start the
Manhattan Project, for instance. There was an obscure novel that predicted the events of the "Titanic," obviously your film. And apparently in 1908, a
short story about war between Japan and America was based around the race to develop a weapon that used radiation. What do you make of this
relationship between fiction and reality and sci-fi and reality?
CAMERON: Well, you know, certainly, we're all born sort of curious and many people follow that curiosity into the sciences. I know I've talked to
a lot of space scientists, physicists, asked astronomers and so on, and they were attracted to the sciences due to their early flights of fantasy
and reading science fiction.
And, you know, there was obviously the "Terminator" and "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" that deal with nuclear war and artificial super intelligence
and so on. Those were science fiction works. I'm at a point right now where I have a hard time writing science fiction. I've -- I'm tasked with writing
a new "Terminator" story. I've been unable to get started on that very far because I don't know what to say that won't be overtaken by real events.
We are in -- we are living in a science fiction age right now. And the only way out is through by using our intelligence, by using our curiosity, by
using our command of technology, but also, by really understanding the stark probabilities that we face.
AMANPOUR: James Cameron, thank you. Secretary Ernest Moniz, CEO of the NTI, thank you.
CAMERON: Thank you as well.
MONIZ: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: So, for all these decades, Hiroshima has been a monument to peace after the atomic bomb was dropped. Polls suggests that Japanese are
beginning to question their pacifist past, and also many, many of the survivors who still talk and who still activists are warning us all never
to forget and to keep these memories so that this does not happen again. We'll be back after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, in the United States, the apparent politicization of immigration courts is setting off alarm bells with dozens of judges fired
under President Trump's second term. Some are raising urgent questions about judicial independence and due process. Former federal immigration
judge George Pappas and Jennifer Peyton join Michel Martin to speak out about what it's like to be suddenly dismissed and what action they're
taking.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Jennifer Peyton, George Pappas, thank you both so much for speaking with us today.
JENNIFER PEYTON, FORMER ASSISTANT CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE: Thank you.
GEORGE PAPPAS, FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGE: Thank you.
MARTIN: So, the reason we're speaking to you is that more than 100 immigration judges in just the last several months have been fired,
reassigned, or resigned under the current administration, often without any public explanation, and you were two of them.
So, I wanted to ask -- Jennifer, I'm going to start with you. You served as an immigration judge in Chicago. You later became a supervising judge.
Could you just explain for people what did your role involve?
JENNIFER PEYTON, FORMER ASSISTANT CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE: So, I served as assistant chief immigration judge, and I was in that role for about three
years, overall, nine years with Department of Justice. As the ACIJ, I supervise the Chicago court. The immigration judges hear a variety of
different cases, including applications for asylum where someone fears return to home country because of what happened or what might happen. They
also hear other forms of relief, different types of waivers, family-based application, on a daily basis will be assigned different types of cases to
hear and to adjudicate within the confines and guidance provided by the immigration laws and authorities.
MARTIN: So, Judge Pappas, my recollection is that you were still serving on the bench this year when you noticed that other judges around you were
starting to lose their jobs. Can you just remind us, like what was it like, what did you see?
GEORGE PAPPAS, FORMER IMMIGRATION JUDGE: Michel, the analogy is a dark cloud. You know, after January 20th, the tenor and tone of the Executive
Office of Immigration Review, which is part of the Department of Justice, began to change. You have to remember, right after inauguration, within
hours, our complete leadership was fired. Our director of -- acting director of EOIR was fired. The chief immigration judge was fired. The
general counsel for EOIR was fired and another leadership was fired.
So, we expect that there's going to be changes from administration to administration, but this happened so quickly. So, quickly we saw that
standard change. But within weeks of that, we had our first mass firing of immigration judges. Around February 13th around 13 judges were fired at the
same time nationwide. This was a huge red flag for those of us that were presiding on the bench. And it was the opening gambit. It was not the end,
it was the beginning.
And so, as we go into April, we had another mass firing of about eight judges, of which three were in my court in Chelmsford, Massachusetts. What
I noticed after that firing is that the judge that was retained was formally with the Department of Homeland Security.
After that event, morale plummeted at immigration courts. Certainly, at our court. We saw mass firings. People started to resign. So, at this point,
immigration judges started to resign or took early retirement. We probably lost another four judges because of that.
The real low spot was when a Navy veteran, a 20-year Navy veteran who was a judge was fired. He was with me. He was there every day. He was a great
judge and I really couldn't understand how they could fire a loyal veteran after 20 years.
MARTIN: When you were fired, what did they say? How did it happen?
PAPPAS: It came by e-mail on a Friday afternoon around 3:30. And to basically summarize what it said, it was basically three or four sentences.
And it said, you know, pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution, the attorney general is not going to renew your probationary status. Your term
of employment will end on a certain date. Please return your equipment at the end of the day. And that was it. And it was signed by Sirce Owen,
director of EOIR. Nothing else.
MARTIN: Jennifer Peyton, you were also dismissed. Did they -- was that -- did you ever get any explanation as to why?
PEYTON: No. And I'm a little different than Judge Pappas, as I had, as you noted, almost nine years in. I was a career non-political appointee. I had
excellent performance reviews, no disciplinary action. I also received an e-mail while on vacation, three sentences citing Article 2, noting the
attorney general had decided to terminate me, and that was effective immediately. No cause, no explanation, no reason.
First of all, neither of you disputes that the attorney general has the authority to make these firings, right, if she so chooses?
[13:45:00]
PEYTON: Well --
MARTIN: Well, go ahead. Tell me. Do you?
PEYTON: So, I'll dispute that. Because, again, I had a permanent position. I was a career non-political. I have rights and Civil Service Reform Act.
Property rights in my position. So, I am appealing my termination. I do not feel that the Article 2 authority is valid for my termination.
MARTIN: George Poppas, what about you? Are you also?
PAPPAS: I'm going to be contesting, because the determination and firing was done for reasons that have nothing to do with our job performance. They
are certainly undertone with a political bias, which we don't have. That is a violation of our agreement. Under our contract with the Department of
Justice, you do not fire judges because of an imputed political opinion. You don't do that, and that is appealable.
MARTIN: We actually asked the administration about this. We asked the Department of Justice for comment on both of your dismissals and whether
those actions reflect a broader shift in policy, because not none has been cited. OK. The department declined to comment.
But in other circumstances, for example, with Caroline Leavitt, who is of course now, you know, a White House spokesperson, said liberal activist
judges are undermining our immigration system, our foreign policy, and our national security. And went on to call one judge's ruling on deportations
to South Sudan, quote/unquote, "truly despicable." And so, I'm wondering how you're hearing that.
PEYTON: Yes, I'll start. Again, I was -- I'm a non-political appointed judge. I served -- I was under the mission statement of EOIR, the
Immigration Court Agency. I fairly uniformly adjudicated the cases before me. I had no record of discipline. I had excellent performance reviews.
There was -- and I'm doing a nonpartisan job. I'm looking at the case in front of me. I'm looking at the facts, looking at the law, adjudicating
that case and nothing about -- I mean, there's -- I didn't bring politics into my office at all. I'm -- I can't, and I didn't because that wasn't my
job. My job was to adjudicate the cases and apply the law and make those decisions, and I did thousands of those, thousands.
MARTIN: George Pappas, what about you? Do you feel that she was talking about you?
PAPPAS: They're imputing or implying that if I came from private practice that somehow I'm going to have a liberal bias. I did pro bono work, working
for nonprofits. They're imputing that that prior work is going to make me more liberal, more implying to grant relief. That's an assumption they're
making.
But what's crystal clear throughout this Ms. Leavitt has not mentioned the productivity, the targets that we met, the efficiency that we brought to
the court, none of that was measured. In the past that was measured. How well is the judge performing? How is there temperament on the court? They
looked at things like that. How many cases did we close? How many motions did we rule on? These are the bread-and-butter productivity issues that
were typically reviewed by our assistant chief immigration. All of that has been tossed onto the ash heap.
The only thing driving, based upon my perception of what's driving these terminations, is an implied political bias. They're just making an implied
political bias and just arbitrarily removing judges that are doing a great job.
MARTIN: Did you ever get any instruction from the administration that suggested to you that if you did not rule in a certain way that your job
would be in line and that your job would be in jeopardy? George, do you want to start?
PAPPAS: Let me start with that, because it did happen to me. I had it both directly and indirectly. Directly, I was told that I should grant what's
called a motion to dismiss. This is when we had ICE officers coming into the courthouse. And I was, in very vigorous terms, pressured to grant these
motions because if you grant that motion, the respondent or the immigrant will now no longer be in removal proceedings, and as soon as they leave the
immigration court the ICE officers would handcuff them or arrest them and then place them into what's called expedited removal and then ship it to
God knows where, South Sudan, El Salvador, or a Gulag in Russia.
This is what my assistant chief judge wanted me to do. What the chief judge was violating here was, number one, telling me how to rule in a specific
case. Two, it was in contradiction of the training that we received, to be fair, to provide a fair hearing to promote due process. Well, if you're
telling me how to rule in a specific case like this, that determines whether a person stays or goes, you're usurping due process. So, that was a
direct interference with my judicial neutrality.
Indirectly, there were other ways that the Executive Office of Immigration Review was pressuring us. A more recent memo of June 27th basically said,
ladies and gentlemen, to all the judges, we are here to promote fairness and due process, but we've seen some bad apples that are biased. We don't
like that. So, if you're a biased judge, you need to get a different career. Otherwise, you'll be fired. I'm paraphrasing here. I'm
paraphrasing, but that was the memo.
[13:50:00]
That's a shocking memo because I will basically tell you that that memo masquerades, masquerades as promoting due process and fairness. And what it
imposes is a different level of stress on all judges because now they have to self-police themselves, am I making the right decision? Am I using the
right words? Normally, they wouldn't be second guessing themselves. So, it adds another level of terror and intimidation on judges. So, that's what I
saw.
MARTIN: Judge Peyton, what about you? Do you -- were you ever given instructions about how you were to rule in your cases, or were you ever
given instruction that you were then expected to pass on to the other judges that you supervised?
PEYTON: Right. So, my role as a supervisor judge for Chicago, I did receive an e-mail on May 30th. And in that e-mail, it was guidance saying
that -- I will say the e-mail contained a lot of may language, immigration judges may dismiss cases, immigration judges may make adjudications on the
records, immigration judges may, may, may. But really when I received that e-mail and I then forward that to my judges, we had a meeting because
myself and all the other judges really believed that that may meant should, that we should dismiss, that we shouldn't wait 10 days for a response, that
we should immediately act on these motions to dismiss and not provide the required 10-day response for the individuals to review that motion, perhaps
seek counsel, and then provide a written response to the motions to dismiss.
MARTIN: Is that legal?
PEYTON: So, the language was very careful, right? It was couched in this may, may, may. And then, when we read it, we all perceive it as the should.
It is I've -- when I had taught judges in class, including Judge Pappas, I was part of the training crew that taught him, we emphasized to each judge
in training, you make the decision on the facts in front of you, you independently review and adjudicate and you don't take the pressures inside
your courtroom when you're making those decisions.
So, to receive, this e-mail kind of flew in the face of everything we had heard and how we had completed and trained the new judges.
MARTIN: So, I just have to ask you both, there are a lot of people who will be listening to this conversation and they'll be saying, well, that's
a shame, but why do I care? What would you say?
PEYTON: So, there are more or less 3.5, 3.8 million cases now in the immigration court. Of those cases, there's maybe 2 million with pending
applications for asylum or other relief. By losing, firing, terminating, making them quick over a hundred -- close to 130 judges since January, and
we are now reducing the judges' numbers to 600, seeing this increased expansion to huge numbers in the enforcement budget, no similar increase in
budgets to the immigration courts, it's showing that they don't care about justice.
The immigration judges are the ones who hear these applications. They have the authority to decide whether that respondent has met their burden to
establish eligibility for relief. They are the ones. So, by firing all these immigration judges, including those, again, non-political career
appointees, like, what does it mean for our country?
MARTIN: Judge Poppas, what about you? What -- if someone were to say to you, that's too bad, you know, that's a shame, but why should I be
concerned about this? What would you say?
PAPPAS: They should be concerned, because when you dismantle due process protections for immigrants, you're also attacking due process protections
for U.S. citizens and their civil liberties. Caught up in these raids currently, you not only have non-U.S. citizens who are being arrested and
deported without due process, you've also had U.S. citizens who have been arrested without probable cause, that's a violation of the U.S.
Constitution.
So, as Jennifer Peyton has just rightly identified, we have a huge increase in supporting enforcement. And we have a destruction and an attack on the
court system on just on judges, which means if you have no justice and you only have enforcement, you no longer have a democracy, you have an
authoritarian state. That's why every American citizen needs to understand this is not just an immigration problem, it is a civil liberties threat.
And unless they connect those dots, they're going to pay the price later on. Everybody should be in fear right now because the civil liberties
protections are under attack.
MARTIN: Jennifer Peyton, George Pappas, thank you both so much for speaking with us today.
PEYTON: Thank you, Michel, for your time.
PAPPAS: Thank you, Michel. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: And to that point, finally, tonight, the time for injustice has gone. With these words, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting
Rights Act into law on this day 60 years ago. The 1965 landmark legislation enshrined the right to vote regardless of race, a hard-won victory for the
Civil Rights Movement. Amongst those fearless voices with the late John Lewis. This is what he told me in 2016.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FMR. REP. JOHN LEWIS (D-GA): When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just you have a moral obligation to speak up, to speak out, and
do something about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Make good trouble, he said. Words to heed at this critical moment for American democracy when the Voting Rights Act faces ever greater
threats.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
