Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Special Representative for Iran Elliott Abrams; Interview with "The Voice of Hind Rajab" Director Kaouther Ben Hania; Interview with Cato Institute Project on Criminal Justice Legal Fellow Mike Fox. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 14, 2026 - 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 VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I've canceled all meetings with the Iranian officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops. And all I say to
them is help is on its way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But what would help look like, I ask Elliott Abrams, Trump's special representative for Iran and Venezuela during his first term.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HIND RAJAB (through translator): I'm scared. They're shooting. Come get me, please.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: "The Voice of Hind Rajab," the heart-shattering film giving voice to the Palestinian children killed by Israel. I'll speak to its
director, Kaouther Ben Hania.
Plus, the family of Renee Good shot dead by ICE seek justice. Legal expert Mike Fox tells Hari Sreenivasan why it could be a long road.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. President Trump promises help is coming for Iranian protesters, with
reports that executions will begin soon and the regime vowing to swiftly punish demonstrators. Some personnel have been urged to leave a U.S.
military base in Qatar as, quote, "a precaution." The same thing happened last June when Trump struck Iran's nuclear sites and Iran retaliated. One
Tehran resident told CNN the atmosphere in the capital is, quote, "extremely heavy and tense."
The internet blackout is in its sixth day, making it incredibly difficult to get a full picture. But doctors and others are getting the message out
that dead and injured are pouring in, hospitals are witnessing mass casualty events. The death toll stands anywhere from the hundreds to many,
many thousands.
Correspondent Jomana Karadsheh has this exclusive report piecing together what's happening inside Iran with testimony from a doctor treating those
wounded protesters. And a warning, of course, it is very difficult to watch.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Iranians are risking their lives to show the world the brutality the regime has unleashed, a
ruthless crackdown it's tried to conceal under the cover of a communications blackout.
IRANIAN DOCTOR (through translator): There were bursts of automatic fire, screaming, people gathering, protests, the staccato of Dushka bursts,
people shrieking and slogans in the street. I opened the window briefly. The smell of gunpowder and tear gas was everywhere.
KARADSHEH: This is the voice of a doctor who's just left Iran. He's sharing his account exclusively with CNN and the pro-reform news outlet
IranWire. He still fears for his safety. So, we are concealing his identity. We're bringing you this rare firsthand testimony of what he
witnessed inside the country.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): He says the crackdown intensified dramatically on Thursday. It was just as we began getting pictures of larger crowds out on
the streets of Iranian cities.
IRANIAN DOCTOR (through translator): Everything fell apart. At 8:00 p.m., the Internet was cut. At 8:20, I got a call from the hospital, Doctor,
come. You must come. When I arrived, I saw what we call a mass casualty situation. Every single one of the four operating rooms was full. I was
there from 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. until the morning. I don't know how many surgeries I did, maybe 10 or 11.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): This is one of the few videos to have surfaced from inside Iran's hospitals. It shows some of the injured. But the
doctor's testimony paints an even more distressing picture.
IRANIAN DOCTOR (through translator): From midnight Thursday onward, the type of injuries changed. The live rounds started. By Friday evening, all
the beds were full. Most had pellet injuries and similar wounds.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Throughout these and previous protests, the regime's security forces raided hospitals and hunted down injured
protesters and the medical staff treating them, turning places of healing into scenes of horror.
[13:05:00]
IRANIAN DOCTOR (through translator): There was so much fear. Three patients contacted me through intermediaries. I was afraid to answer,
wanting to make sure it wasn't security agents trying to trap me.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): The true scale of the carnage is only just beginning to emerge. Once again, so many Iranians find themselves abandoned
and alone in this nightmare.
IRANIAN DOCTOR (through translator): The hope being pumped by external media is not what we feel inside. Inside Iran, it's a mix of terror,
desperation, and a tiny flickering shred of hope.
KARADSHEH (voice-over): Jomana Karadsheh, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And like many reporters, I've also received word of these voice messages which are regularly being sent out to explain from the ground
there in Tehran what's going on. One woman talks about how one night in their neighborhood they witnessed the Basij, which are the shock troops, if
you like, of the Revolutionary Guard Corps coming in on motorbike, bicycles and firing what they called automatic weapons. They used the word
Kalashnikov and they said that everybody in that street were trying to help each other, trying to get out of the way of that. So, these reports keep
coming out.
For its part, the foreign ministry has now been saying for the last two days that they have the situation under control and that nothing big has
been happening on the streets since. They also say many of the security forces have been killed as well.
So, this is a critical moment for the regime, caught now between threats from its own people and from the United States. But what options does the
U.S. have? Elliott Abrams served as President Trump's special representative for Iran during his first term, and he joined me a little
earlier from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Elliott Abrams, welcome to the program.
ELLIOTT ABRAMS, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR IRAN: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: This seems to be a very, very critical moment in not only the situation for the people of Iran, but relations between the United States
and Iran. We've played President Trump multiple times, you know, saying to the Iranians, help is on the way. And now, I just want to ask you first to
react to that before I play another little bit of what he said.
ABRAMS: Well, I think he's painted himself into a corner. Help is on the way is pretty stark. It means, I'm going to do something. And he has in the
past, you know, criticized President Obama, the red line over the use of gas in Syria. He's got to act now. He's got a few days to do it, maybe a
week at most, at most, but he's got to act.
AMANPOUR: Wow. You don't sound like you agree with this, but I'm going to play a little bit more, and then you can tell me. This is more of that
statement, calling on Iranians to protest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: And by the way to all Iranian patriots, keep protesting. Take over your institutions if possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, how do you interpret that? Mr. Elliott Abrams, I have never heard an American president actually say that to any case, except we'll go
back to the first Gulf War, but that's quite a thing for an American president to do, right?
ABRAMS: Yes. I mean, he's calling on them to remain in the streets. Take over institutions means, I guess, seize buildings, which is why I think
that really, considering the rate at which people are being killed in the streets, he's got to act, and I would think before the weekend is over.
AMANPOUR: Can you tell me then, given that you were his adviser, as we stated, on Iran and indeed Venezuela in the first term, and you helped
create maximum pressure and those packages, what do you think he should do? And should he do something? You said painted himself into the corner.
ABRAMS: Well, I think he should act. I think he has to now. But yes, I think we should show more than just verbal support for the Iranian people.
Just saying, you know, the world is watching or something like that doesn't help them. So, what would? I think that doing something like hitting
missile sites or nuclear sites today doesn't help them. I would hope he would look at, for example, cyber options that actually hurt the regime and
its ability to suppress the Iranian people.
AMANPOUR: So, do you not think that they should -- because it's very difficult to pass. Obviously, they're not going to tell us what they're
going to do, if anything, but some are thinking about missile strikes or, you know, the kind of thing that he did around Venezuela before actually
abducting the president there, you know, hitting the boats, et cetera.
ABRAMS: Well, the equivalent would be, if there are reasonable targets, hitting, for example, Revolutionary Guard headquarters, sites that are
actually used in the suppression of demonstrations. If we have such targets, then they are a reasonable action for the president to take.
[13:10:00]
AMANPOUR: Mr. Abrams, I mentioned the first Gulf War. You will remember that President George H. W. Bush essentially urged the Shiites and the
Kurds in Iraq to rise up and depose President Saddam Hussein after the U.S. and the coalition kicked him out of Kuwait. And then they did rise up, and
the U.S. did not come to their help, and they were massacred. They were slaughtered. We all covered it.
Is there a risk that this could be -- I don't know, this could happen in Iran if people believe the president's going to come to their help and come
out and put themselves at risk on the streets?
ABRAMS: Sure. I mean, if he acts and demonstrations increase and you have a kind of Tiananmen Square where the regime continues to do even more of
what he was already doing, which is shooting down what looks to be thousands of people, and then the rebellion is put down and the United
States does nothing more, then, yes, that would be a terrible situation. And I hope the president and his advisers thought about that before he, in
essence, encouraged further demonstrations.
AMANPOUR: You've been covering, watching, dealing with the Iran file, so to speak, for many, many decades. What is your assessment? Because I know
everybody, whether it's in the U.S. government, in the Israeli government, in the diaspora, wherever there is, every time there is an uprising, and
I've covered many of them, people immediately say, this is it, the regime is about to fall. Do you see a difference this time?
ABRAMS: I see a difference in that it didn't start with students at universities, it started with Bazaaris. It started with middle-class people
and then spread, A. B, it's really all over the country. And C, there is a new focus on Reza Pahlavi, a figure who didn't appear in the past. But I
would say what I think we have not seen yet, I've certainly not been privy to it, is any breaking up of the security forces. I don't see, yet,
disloyalty. I don't see security forces refusing to follow orders. Maybe that's happening and they're covering it up. But that would be a critical
ingredient if the regime is really going to start falling.
AMANPOUR: The regime has said that more than 100 security forces have been killed and they've shown what they call the funerals of martyrs on the
state television. So, they are admitting that those security forces have also been killed, as well as, obviously, hundreds if not thousands of
protesters.
Let's talk about Reza Pahlavi, the son of the Shah who was overthrown by this Islamic movement, by Khomeini, Ayatollah Khomeini, 46-odd years ago.
The president, Trump, has avoided, out and out, you know, throwing his weight behind him or saying that he's going to meet him. He has enabled,
though, his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to open a channel, I guess, to meet Reza Pahlavi.
You've been covering this for a long time. What kind of support, organization, coherence, unity does the Iranian exile opposition movement
have around Pahlavi, for instance?
ABRAMS: Well, he certainly has many supporters inside the country. I cannot tell you how well organized they are. And I don't think the United
States should be, in a sense, trying to pick a winner and say, he's our guy and we want to restore some kind of constitutional monarchy. But I am very
struck by what looks to be a wave of support for him.
And, you know, Christiane, I saw him on TV wearing a suit and a white shirt and a tie, and I thought, that will appeal to tens of millions of Iranians.
No more of the mullahs in their robes and their shirts collared up to here. A normal, Western-looking, modern-looking person dressed normally. I think
will appeal to millions of Iranians. That's what they want. That's the future they want. I think that helps them a great deal.
AMANPOUR: Well, let me just -- since you brought that up, you know as well as I do the history of American intervention, involvement, coups in Iran,
not to mention the deposing Mossadegh for the oil, if you remember, along with the Brits during the height of the Cold War in the early '50s, and
bringing back the Shah. That led to a whole load of backlash that eventually culminated with the '79 revolution that brought the Ayatollahs.
Is there a risk for the United States in trying to manage any kind of intervention, much less if Israel's involved? Is there a risk that this
could all backfire?
[13:15:00]
ABRAMS: There's always a risk, but I don't think it's a very great one because I think in past decades the regime had nationalism in its favor. It
doesn't anymore. The people of Iran, the great majority, appear to have reached the conclusion that this regime is ruining the country, that their
support for Hezbollah and Hamas, that their nuclear program has wasted tons of money that Iran really does not have, that has created an enemy
relationship with the United States and with Israel that they don't need to have.
So, I think a lot of people thought last year after the Israeli and American attacks, oh, the Iranians are going to rise up in nationalist
fervor. They didn't. Nationalism now works against the regime.
AMANPOUR: And to be fair, all those things you say, you know, may be true, but the thing that really sparked this one was their quality of life, the
poverty they're being plunged into, partly because of maximum pressure that you've all engineered, but also because of total mismanagement by this
regime. They want a decent living.
So, what I want to ask you then, do you believe -- because, again, you have the -- you did have the Venezuela file. This is what Iran expert Suzanne
Maloney wrote just now. Faced with a well-entrenched and ideologically committed regime, Mr. Trump has no Venezuela option, no limited operation
that removes a malignant leader, leaving a newly compliant power structure that maintains some semblance of order.
So, A, do you agree that there's no Venezuela option? And, B, do you -- have you heard, like some analysts are saying, that perhaps the Trump
administration is actually trying to make a deal with the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?
ABRAMS: Well, there is no snatch-and-grab option in Tehran. That's correct. The president this week ruled out negotiations until all of this
violence stops. I certainly hope that if it stops, if the regime's still in place, he doesn't immediately start negotiations that will end up actually
strengthening the regime and, in that sense, forgetting about or even rewarding them for the massive violence against the people of Iran.
I do think we have options for weakening the regime. For example, using naval power and air power to prevent them from continuing to violate our
sanctions on the export of Iranian oil. We did a lot of that in the Trump first term. And in the last four or five years, there's been less
enforcement, and a lot more oil has been getting out and going primarily to China. We can stop that. We can certainly try to stop that.
That's a medium-term thing. That's not going to affect today's demonstrations. There, I think the question is, are there ways of weakening
the regime and its security forces?
AMANPOUR: All right. Elliot Abrams, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
ABRAMS: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Later in the program, "The Voice of Hind Rajab," an award- winning film based on the heartbreaking story of a young Palestinian girl's final hours before she was shot dead by the IDF in Gaza. I speak with the
writer and director Kaouther Ben Hania.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: In Gaza, Israel continues to kill people, more than 400 since the ceasefire came into effect in October. And so, many are still grieving
those who were lost at the height of the war, among them thousands of children. The death of one little girl in particular is seared into the
memories of many.
In January 2024, five-year-old Hind Rajab was trapped in a car with her relatives under fire by Israeli forces when she called the Palestinian Red
Crescent Society. She used a mobile phone. She pleaded for someone to rescue her. But in the end, it was too late. She was killed by those
Israeli forces in that area. The Red Crescent posted audio of Hind's own desperate voice, which shocked the world.
Now, filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania has turned that audio into a feature film. It is called "The Voice of Hind Rajab." And here is some of the
trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HIND RAJAB (through translator): They're shooting. Come get me, please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What's your name?
RAJAB (through translator): Hind Rajab Hamada. Please, don't leave me. I'm all alone.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Mahdi, I need an ambulance.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We need to guarantee a safe route.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): She doesn't have time.
RAJAB (through translator): The tanks are here. They're shooting at me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): See all these people? We've lost them all. Without coordination, those eight minutes can cost them lives,
Omar.
RAJAB (through translator): Please, come.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And Kaouther Ben Hania joins me now in the studio. You know, many people have seen it and written that it's almost impossible to watch
this. How do you feel about that given that you're trying to make people watch it and see it and understand?
KAOUTHER BEN HANIA, DIRECTOR, "THE VOICE OF HIND RAJAB": I know that many people have fears. I was scared to death while I was doing this movie, but
I think it's important to watch it. Why? Because this is not a story, this is history We can't afford to look away. And I often tell people who tell
me it's hard. I don't know if I can handle it. I tell them it's not your life. Thanks to God. So, bear witness. And if it's really hard, do
something about it.
AMANPOUR: So, tell me, you're Tunisian. You were in the middle of doing another movie when you heard this audio that was posted and that it shocked
so many people around the world. What did you think when you heard it? You're talking about having to bear witness.
HANIA: You know the first millisecond I was thinking, she was asking me to save her, you know, which wasn't (INAUDIBLE). But her voice was so alive,
so immediate that the feeling I had when I understood the situation was unbearable, you know hearing a child pleading for life and I was -- I felt
helpless and I hate it when I feel helpless.
So, I asked myself, what can I do? I'm a filmmaker, you know I can do -- I can give a space of this -- for this little girl to be remembered and to be
heard, you know, because hearing her voice on social media wasn't, you know, the right place to remember. Social media is not place for, you know,
mourning and to remember and to bear witness also, because you forget. You know, social media, it's about scrolling.
AMANPOUR: But you didn't forget. And this one really, really, you know -- it really cracked through the defenses that people was just so up to here
with the war, but this one really make a difference. So, tell me a little bit so that our audience fully understands. This happened in 2024. Israel
was bombing in response to the horrendous attack by Hamas on October 7th, the year before. And she -- why was she in this car? How was she able to
call out? What was her situation at that moment where you're describing in this film?
HANIA: Yes. That day the Israeli army ordered the evacuation of Tel al- Hawa neighborhood. So, her mother -- It was raining. We are in January 2024. And her mother wanted to protect her, so she put her in a car with
her uncle, aunt and four cousins to flee, you know, the area. They were shot at, like, 500 meters away from home. All of them were killed except
Layan and her cousin -- Layan, her name, the cousin of Hind.
[13:25:00]
And -- so she was -- the Red Crescent people called the phone and they talked to Layan. And we know this is a very famous, you know, recording
piece that was all over the internet. Layan was killed on the phone with the Red Crescent people.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just stop for a second. So, the Red Crescent is the Palestinian version of their Red Cross.
HANIA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: It's an aid operation that operates all over the West Bank and Gaza.
HANIA: And they were in Ramallah because all the lines --
AMANPOUR: Which is in the West Bank, way away from Gaza.
HANIA: Exactly, because all the lines were bombarded by the Israeli army. So, if you have an emergency and you call the Red Crescent number to have
an ambulance, you will be transferred automatically to the West Bank.
AMANPOUR: Yes, where they had the central command station, essentially.
HANIA: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: So, let us play the first clip that we have, and this is where the medics from Ramallah, Red Crescent, are speaking to Hind in the car.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What's your name?
RAJAB (through translator): There's no one with me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What's your name?
RAJAB (through translator): There's no one with me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I can't hear your name. I'm Omar. What's your name?
RAJAB (through translator): My name is Hanood.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): What's your name?
RAJAB (through translator): Hanood.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Hanood? And your sister's name?
RAJAB (through translator): Come get me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Where's your sister?
RAJAB (through translator): Come get me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I will, bet where's your sister?
RAJAB (through translator): I don't have one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, again, she says Hanood. That, we understand, is a diminutive, a sort of a nickname for Hind.
HANIA: Yes, and he's asking about her sister because just before, he had Layan, the cousin.
AMANPOUR: And thinking it was her sister.
HANIA: Exactly. So -- and she was saying, I'm alone, I'm alone. And what she means, actually, that she was the sole survivor of all her family and
she was surrounded by a dead body of six members of her family talking to those first responders.
AMANPOUR: So, in the car, let's not forget, they're not out of the car, they're still trapped, hiding in the car.
HANIA: Hiding in the car.
AMANPOUR: The forces are somewhere outside and they're desperate. Now, this is Hind Rajab's voice.
HANIA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Your film is called that, it is that. It is extraordinary. I don't know whether there are other films, feature films, because this is
not a documentary, but all of these others are actors.
HANIA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: But Hind's voice is her voice. Tell me about that. Why did you just not do a documentary? What was the artistic and historical witness you
wanted to bear using that format?
HANIA: Yes. I have to mention that what the actors are saying is word by word what the real person said in those recordings. So, I needed to be very
faithful and close to those recordings. I thought about doing a documentary in the beginning because I'm a documentary filmmaker, but quickly
understood that there was great work done by the forensic architect, for example, the Washington Post. They did a great piece of investigation
around the killing of Hind Rajab, which kind of weapon was used and where were the tank with the satellite images. So, you have all the proof of this
war crime outside in the world. And Al Jazeera actually did the documentary.
And I thought that maybe cinema can do something better than explaining. We are done explaining at some point, you know. Cinema can provoke empathy. We
can be with those incredible heroes trying to save lives in a very, very difficult condition. And I needed to be with them, you know, to hear Hind's
voice, because they are the ones who listen. They are the ones who tried and did everything and paid a heavy price, actually, because they lost two
colleagues, Ahmed Al-Madhoun and Yusuf Zaino.
AMANPOUR: We'll come to that in a moment.
HANIA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: We'll come to that in a moment. But I want to know, because this is now the artistic part, these actors, Omar and the others in the film,
the medics who are trying to help Hind and try to organize her extraction, did they even know? Had they heard the voice? Did they know? Did you
practice? Did you rehearse?
HANIA: You know, when I made the choice to tell this story with actors to do a movie in the present tense, to go back to this moment when saving her
was possible, not to do a movie about a historic thing, you know, when I made this decision, I was asking those actors something very hard equation
for an actor, which is to be faithful word by word to what is said by the real person, because they are portraying a real person, and at the same
time, to be in the present time as if they were the real person.
[13:30:00]
So, what we did, actually, that they learned their lines as actors do, word by word, and when we started shooting, they received the voice and they
heard the voice of Hind Rajab for the first time in front of the camera. So, what we see in the movie, it's not acting.
AMANPOUR: It's genuine emotion?
HANIA: It's beyond performance. It's them reacting to the voice of this little girl.
AMANPOUR: And it really comes through. I mean, it was like -- it just like goes right through you, the force of that emotion and what they're forced
to cope with, and they can't do anything. The rescuers in Gaza, who they're trying to coordinate to get to her, are only eight minutes away, but yet
they're trapped inside, layer upon layer, inside, you know, that's closed off by the IDF, I think. There's coordination that has to happen, that word
between the Israelis and the Palestinian rescuers.
Now, Masha Gessen, as you know, New York Times op-ed, has called it the movie I was afraid to see. Writing, what I didn't realize when I resisted
seeing the movie was that these deaths were not its subject. The subject of the movie is the moral injury inflicted on people who became implicated in
these deaths, even as they tried to prevent them.
Do you agree with that? Is the subject the injury that they face in trying to save a life that, in the end, they couldn't save, and the whole
coordination conundrum, or is it about the death of this little girl?
HANIA: It's about all those things, you know, and I decided to tell the story from the point of view of the Red Crescent first responder, because
when you think there's an ambulance eight minutes away and we have a child surrounded by the dead body of her family, why don't you send the
ambulance? This is the first question, any normal person asks himself, you know.
And when I understood that there is a set of rules imposed by the Israeli occupation that they have gone through so they don't bomb the ambulance,
and the Red Crescent did everything to respect this set of rules, and they got the approval, and they got the green light, the secure route, and the
Israelis were aware of this ambulance coming, and they bombed it a meter away from the car. We hear it on the recording.
We have Yusuf Zaino saying the bus -- the ambulance, aid worker, saying on the phone, in the recording, there she is, he saw the car, and we hear the
bombing on the phone, you know. So, we think this bureaucracy set by design by the occupation is something that the Israelis don't respect themselves,
you know, but they need the Palestinians to respect it, you know. So, for me, this was outrageous. I couldn't, like, not explain this in the movie.
AMANPOUR: I want to play just before this final burst of fire that kills her, what's happening again in the control area where they're trying to get
it. This is now sort of an argument between Omar, who we saw before, the person who was on the phone with Hind, and Mahdi, who I believe is in
charge of that department. So, this is the tension that's going on as they're trying to save a life and obeying those rules that you just talked
about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): She's bleeding. She's hurt, do something.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Publish that she's hurt and she's bleeding.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): That's a great idea. And don't forget to write in English. She's hurt.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Seriously?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Check out social media. Look at them. Take a good look. Children's bodies ripped apart on the side of the
road. Do your eally think the voice of a terrified little girl will spark their empathy? She needs an ambulance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, yes, she needs an ambulance, pure and simple. These two represent sort of the conflict in trying to do this under these
circumstances. Tell me a little bit about that.
HANIA: You know, all of them want the same thing, to save this little girl. And actually, Mahdi is saying in the movie --
AMANPOUR: He's the supervisor.
HANIA: Yes, he's the coordination officer.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HANIA: If I'm losing other colleague, I resign. And this is what the real Mahdi did after Hind Rajab's story, because he's in a very, very hard
position. He's the one tasked with the fact to send ambulance, you know, to save life. His job is a noble job, you know, but he's sending people to
their death because you have cruelty, you know, because you have war crimes. So, he resigned just after this story.
[13:35:00]
And Omar is -- in this position, he don't trust, you know, those rules, and he want to act immediately. And both are right, you know, both positions.
So, we choose in the movie, they choose to follow the set of rule imposed by Israel. And at the end, Israel didn't respect those set of rule. She
imposed them, you know.
So, you have this disparate situation of the killing of Yusuf Zaino and Ahmed Madhoun.
AMANPOUR: Those are the two ambulance medics who came and --
HANIA: To save Hind.
AMANPOUR: To save her. Finally, they got through these layers of coordination. They got there. And at the last moment, they were fired upon.
HANIA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And that also, you know, sprayed the car and Hind was killed, basically. Now, Israel never accepted responsibility for the killing. As
you mentioned, Washington Post and the New York Times, other outlets investigating, they showed armored vehicles as close as 13 to 20 meters
from Hind's car. And the car was hit by 64 bullets from an Israeli tank or machine gun. And the ambulance was struck by a tank shell.
Did you ever -- I mean, it's just probably, I don't know, it's a silly question, did you ever try to put the Israelis in it as well? Did you ever
try to get a response or have an actor play that part?
HANIA: You know, the Israelis say their response. They are denying. They are denying this. And, you know, when you tell a story in cinema, it's not
like journalism. You choose a point of view, you know. You have one point of view and you stick to it because you need to be in the shoes of those
characters. So, the Israeli perspective was, you know, for me, who to portray, you know.
AMANPOUR: Very quickly about the response, because it's been really critically acclaimed and received. We saw images of, what was it, a 23-
minute standing ovation at the premiere at the Venice Film Festival. You know, executive producers like Brad Pitt, Alfonso Cuaron, Jonathan Glazer.
But, as almost all Palestinian films, it has struggled to get a U.S. distribution. What does that say to you? And have you made any inroads
since this to get it?
HANIA: Yes. I mean, thanks God the movie is distributed right now in the United States. It was very hard because another movie about another subject
with all this praise at Venice Film Festival. We won the -- you know, the Silver Lion. And you expect it to be distributed by a huge distributor. It
wasn't the case. But I knew it. It will be a fight, you know. And thanks God the movie is being distributed in a small scale, but people are coming
to watch it.
AMANPOUR: Well, good luck to you. It's an incredible story, and you've done it in the most amazing and powerful way.
HANIA: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. Kaouther Ben Hania, thank you very much.
HANIA: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: "The Voice of Hind Rajab" is out now in the U.S., France, Spain, Middle East. And it's coming to U.K. cinemas on Friday.
Coming up, protests continue a week after the fatal ice shooting of Renee Goode. That's in the United States. How easy will it be for her family to
seek accountability? Cato Institute legal fellow Mike Fox weighs in. That's after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, outrage over the surging presence of federal agents in Minneapolis continues as the United States reels from the deadly shooting
of Renee Good by an ICE officer last week. Minnesota and Illinois are now suing the Trump administration, while new calls to defund ICE are emerging
amongst Democrats. But what about actual accountability for Good's death? Six federal prosecutors quit yesterday after the Justice Department pushed
for a criminal investigation into Renee Good's widow.
Mike Fox is a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, and in a new op-ed, he highlights this tragedy and its aftermath, which are part of a wider trend,
he says, of federal impunity. Here he is with Hari Sreenivasan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Mike Fox, thanks so much for joining us just this past week. Renee Good was shot
and killed on a residential street in Minneapolis, Minnesota by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent named Jonathan Ross. You wrote
recently in an op-ed something that kind of caught our eye, which was that this is part of a pattern. And tell us, what is that pattern?
MIKE FOX, LEGAL FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE PROJECT ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Yes, Hari, good to be here. Thanks for having me. So, you know, it's difficult
to get data from the government, from Border Patrol, from ICE, from the Department of Homeland Security. There's been a pretty good investigative
report from the Wall Street Journal, and then I took what they wrote and tried to parse through.
And from what I can gather, since July, the Immigration Enforcement, be it ICE or Border Patrol, have shot 13 times at individuals in cars. Of those,
they've hit eight people. Two, including Renee Good, were killed. So, one of the patterns that's emerged in these cases, as soon as the government
shoots someone in a vehicle, and by the government, I'm referring to ICE and Border Patrol, the propaganda machine, Assistant Secretary Tricia
McLaughlin, who's the communications guru for the Department of Homeland Security, starts, you know, trying to frame the narrative in a way that the
agents are always right and the civilians are always wrong, trying to sanitize their hands, paint the person who was shot as being some horrific,
violent criminal. They were already calling Renee Good a domestic terrorist, taking the side of the officers who were accused of killing
them.
The reality is, there were many instances where this is what Ms. McLaughlin was saying, and it's been objectively false, and it's been proven false.
We've seen a number of instances where she's alleged people have committed these heinous crimes only for the cases to fall apart the second they get
into court.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the things that you wrote about that I want to highlight for our audience, you said, the tragedy of the Good case is
compounded by a legal regime that all but ensures federal agents remain untouchable by civil damages lawsuits. If Good's surviving family members
attempt to sue Ross and the agents involved in her shooting for violating her civil rights, they will almost certainly find no remedy in a courtroom.
How?
FOX: It's pretty clear. If you pull the Department of Homeland Security use of force guidelines, which were last updated in 2023, ICE and Border
Patrol are bound by those guidelines. They're required to follow them. It's also pretty obvious that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are
not going to take any remedial measures. They're not going to punish him, dock his pay, fire him, do anything like that.
So, the only other ways that would be to hold him or other federal agents accountable for constitutional violations would be criminal case, which is,
obviously, we're not going to see the Trump administration federally prosecute this. And prosecuting at the state level poses a number of legal
challenges. And that's assuming that the investigators from the federal investigators of the FBI even cooperate with the state investigators to
give them the evidence and the, you know, transcripts of interviews and body cam footage and things that would be necessary to pursue a criminal
case, which they pretty clearly are trying to screen Minnesota investigators out of.
So, civil damages would be what most people think. And what that is, is that's the ability to go into court and seek money damages when your
constitutional rights have been violated. In 1871, Congress passed a law that's commonly known as Section 1983. And that law was passed following
the Civil War. There were newly freed slaves in the South who had all these wonderful rights on paper. But as they went to vindicate them or to
exercise them, they were finding state and local officials in the south were precluding those rights from being exercised.
[13:45:00]
So, Congress passed this law allowing, you know, private citizens to go into court and seek monetary damages against state and local officials.
That has never been extended to the federal government. And if you think about why, it kind of makes sense, right? At the time in the 1870s, the
ones violating the Constitution were the states and local governments in the south. They were not the federal government. But also, historically,
the federal government's been one of the enumerated powers. It's very small. It was never intended to do a whole lot.
Flash forward about 100 years, and the federal government is involved in every aspect of our lives. So, in 1965, there's a gentleman named Webster
Bivens. Webster Bivens is in his Brooklyn apartment, minding his own business, when the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which was the precursor to
the DEA, or the Drug Enforcement Administration, barged in without a warrant, strip-searched him, and made an arrest.
Mr. Bivens decided to take his case all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. And six years later, the court read an implied right of
action to sue federal officials for Fourth Amendment violations. Over the years, the court extended it a little bit. But the court, over the past few
decades, has become increasingly reluctant to extend Bivens. Some of the more conservative justices want to actually get rid of it entirely.
There were two cases within the past decade or so where the court could have extended Bivens to immigration enforcement contacts. And both times,
the court did not do so, citing unfounded national security concerns.
It's also worth noting, of course, that the cases that we're talking about now, by and large, don't even deal with enforcement. Ms. Good was a U.S.
citizen. They deal with street-level policing. But because the court has so withered away Bivens and never extended it to the immigration contacts, and
because the statutory cause of action, Section 1983, only applies to state and local actors, if your constitutional rights are violated by federal
agents, like ICE agents or Border Patrol agents, you are without recourse to get into federal court.
And the other point that I would make is on the off chance that you somehow get into federal court, like in some utopian world where I become a federal
judge and allow the case to proceed, you're still not going to get recourse because there's this doctrine known as qualified immunity. And that
doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in the 1960s. And it stands in direct contradiction of the statute I mentioned earlier called Section
1983.
And what qualified immunity does is it says that unless you can identify a case where the exact same thing happened in the exact same jurisdiction, so
unless Ms. Good's family could go into court and prove that an agent, an ICE agent, violated someone else's rights in the exact same way that their
loved one's rights were violated in the Eighth Circuit, which is where Minnesota stands, they have no redress. And of course, qualified immunity
only matters if Congress were to codify Bivens or if the court were to recognize an implied right to sue federal immigration agents in the first
place.
So, these two doctrines working together make it all but impossible to ever get into federal court seeking civil damages.
SREENIVASAN: If I'm hearing you correctly, her family would have more rights for recourse if it was a Minneapolis police officer or a state
police officer that did this, right? And you're saying that given the way that the laws are structured today, a federal agent can in broad daylight
shoot someone and not be held accountable depending on the administration's interests.
FOX: Yes, that's exactly right. So, let's say instead of being shot by an ICE agent, she was shot by a federal agent. She could bring a cause of
action under Section 1983. Of course, unless you could find another case in the Eighth Circuit where someone's rights were violated in exactly the same
way, the officer will likely benefit from qualified immunity.
So, it's a monumental battle, but at least there's a way to initially get into court. Whereas with the federal agent for constitutional violations,
there's not. And yes, I think most people are shocked when they see the impunity that federal agents can act with. They can literally gun a woman
down on a public street in broad daylight and face absolutely zero semblance of accountability. That should shock people to the core.
SREENIVASAN: I just want to get your reaction to a statement that Tricia McLaughlin made to Time Magazine after the shootings, that it's a pattern
of vehicles being used as weapons by violent agitators to attack our law enforcement. Dangerous criminals, whether they be illegal aliens or U.S.
citizens, are assaulting law enforcement and turning their vehicles into weapons to attack law enforcement.
[13:50:00]
Within minutes and hours of an incident, you see the spokespeople or even leadership coming out before, you know, there is an opportunity for
everyone just to get the facts on the ground of what happened. I mean, is there sort of -- are there -- is that strategic and tactical?
FOX: Oh, yes. I mean, I think the end goal is to try to make the government look like the good guys and make anyone they deal with look bad,
look like a domestic terrorist, portray a certain perspective. They're professional agitators. They're people with extensive criminal histories.
Now, has ICE and Border Patrol arrested some violent offenders with extensive criminal histories? Oh, yes. There's some cases ongoing for
serious charges, but there's been four cases already that I'm aware of where cases have been dismissed. There's been several where they've yet to
be filed. It's just a matter of what matters most. Does following the Constitution and vindicating people's rights matter, or does framing the
narrative that Stephen Miller wants pushed around the country and Gregory Bovino wants people to believe is true matter more than the Constitution? I
think it's pretty clear which the answer is here.
SREENIVASAN: So, right now, you are also seeing lawsuits from the State of Minnesota and the state of Illinois against the federal government. They're
claiming among several things. Look, this is a violation of the 10th Amendment. I mean, we are having to push all of our police officers to all
these different events instead of the jobs that they need to do and that the federal agents are terrorizing communities.
Now, what's the likelihood that lawsuits like this against the federal government go forward?
FOX: Yes. So, it's important to distinguish. So, these lawsuits are seeking injunctive relief. What they're doing is they're asking a federal
judge, in this case, the State of Minnesota, the State of Illinois, are asking a federal judge. We've seen these cases happen in other
jurisdictions. Cato Institute just filed an amicus brief in support of a challenge in Kern County, California in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
What they're asking is they're asking a federal judge to issue an injunction barring the agencies from operating as they are, from violating
the Constitution prolifically, from terrorizing civilians, and just all they're really asking is for the agencies to follow the law and do what
they're supposed to do. From what I understand, the attorney general of Minnesota simply wants ICE to conduct immigration enforcement, which is
what ICE is supposed to do. I don't think that's in any way unreasonable.
Now, the question as to how successful these lawsuits are going to be depends, right? We've seen some cases where there's been success in the
lower courts. I think eventually, the Supreme Court's going to have to deal with the merits of these cases. And, you know, by and large, there'll be
different questions. The questions in some of them is, can the government stop people or seize people on account of something like ethnicity and the
fact that they're outside a Home Depot or working at a farm?
If you open the Constitution, the answer couldn't be clearer. We don't live in a world where your Fourth Amendment rights depend upon the color of your
skin or what country you were born in. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that.
And then you have other questions like, are the courts going to be willing to stop what's going on in Minnesota and what's going on in Illinois? I
certainly hope so, right? The courts are really our last line of defense here.
SREENIVASAN: But is there anything that Congress can do to constrain how federal troops act on U.S. soil?
FOX: Yes, and just to be clear, I'm not talking about federal troops as in the military, I'm talking about ICE and Border Patrol.
SREENIVASAN: Sure. Yes, yes.
FOX: Yes. So, Congress controls the power of the purse, right? Congress can give ICE and Border Patrol as much or as little money as they would
like, right? Obviously, if Congress were to cut their budget in half, that would dramatically impede their ability to do what they're doing. That
would be one way Congress could do it, right?
Other things Congress could do is pass laws that have, you know, aggressive enforcement mechanisms. Like, for instance, ICE and Border Patrol agents
cannot categorically, under any circumstance, wear a mask or balaclava on the job. They must have their name and employer on them at all times. But
those policies alone don't accomplish anything because the government just ignores them. So, you would have to tie it into something, well, if they
don't follow it, they lose X amount of funding, or if they don't follow it, you know, at any time, there's some type of proceeding that gets brought in
court, there's an inference against the agent or something like that. That's one thing that we could do.
The other thing, and I think the most important thing Congress can do, is codify, expand Bivens, and abolish --
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And we're going to go to Washington right now, where the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers have been at the White House today, and
they're about to hold a news conference. Let's listen in.
LARS LOKKE RASMUSSEN, DANISH FOREIGN MINISTER: -- capabilities, not dog slates, but ships, drones, fighter jets, et cetera. And we are definitely
ready to do more. The U.S. has already a wide military access to Greenland.
[13:55:00]
Under the 1951 defense agreement, the U.S. can always ask for increasing its presence in Greenland. And therefore, we wish to hear if the U.S. had
any further requests to make in this aspect. We would examine any such request constructively.
Greenland is, through the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of NATO and has been that since the founding of NATO in 1949, and is therefore also covered by
Article 5. We have been pushing for quite a while in NATO for a stronger collective role in Greenland, together with a number of allies. And we are
eager to work with the U.S. on advancing this agenda, and we are prepared to go further.
Therefore, our aim was to find a common understanding on all these points and to launch, if possible, further in-depth work to deliver on them. On
this basis, we had what I will describe as a frank but also constructive discussion. The discussions focused on how to ensure the long-term security
in Greenland. And here, our perspectives continue to differ, I must say.
The president has made his view clear, and we have a different position. We, the Kingdom of Denmark, continue to believe that also the long-term
security of Greenland can be ensured inside the current framework, the 1951 Agreement on the Defense of Greenland, as well as the NATO Treaty. For us,
ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are,
of course, totally unacceptable.
And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement, but we also agree to disagree. And therefore, we will, however, continue to talk. We have
decided to form a high-level working group to explore if we can find a common way forward.
The group, in our view, should focus on how to address the American security concerns while at the same time respecting the red lines of the
Kingdom of Denmark. We expect that such a group will meet for a first time within a matter of weeks. And then I will pass the floor to my colleague
from Greenland, Vivian Motzfeldt.
VIVIAN MOTZFELDT, GREENLANDIC FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you so much. Not repeating what already been said here. So, I would like to say something in
my own language because there are many, many people in Greenland that follows. And for that, I hope that you will allow me.
MOTZFELDT: I think that our meeting today and our commitment to find the right path is something that gives us to be able to see forward. And by
saying that, I also committed on what Minister -- Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen already said. So, thank you for that.
RASMUSSEN: Thank you. And then I think we take a few questions. Tom from BBC. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE).
RASMUSSEN: Well, that's actually quite a few questions at the same time. Well, I have known the president for quite a while, also in my former
capacity as prime minister in Denmark, and I know his approach. But I must say, and even though he addressed things quite differently from what I
would have done myself, there's also always a bit of truth in what he's saying, not about the dog slays. Well, we also have dog slays to our
special forces. That's the way to, you know -- otherwise you couldn't come around in the northern part of --
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
