Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Casualties of Stress: The Battle That Outlasts the War; White House Press Briefing
Aired May 13, 2009 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: To Washington now and a change of heart about photos of detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon had planned to release those photos later this month, in response to lawsuits from the American Civil Liberties Union. But within the past hour, we learned that the president will object on the grounds that it might endanger troops while inflaming, in the words of one official, the theaters of war. We're going to keep you posted on that.
So, waterboarding, is it torture? The topic of a Senate hearing today. Here's some of the key facts on what the Bush administration called an enhanced interrogation technique.
According to the Justice Department, in May of 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, among others, discussed interrogation tactics used against terror suspect Abu Zubaydah.
In July of 2002, the CIA was given the OK to use waterboarding.
In August of that year, Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times.
At today's Senate hearing, former FBI special agent Ali Soufan testified that waterboarding is ineffective and wrong.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALI SOUFAN, CEO, THE SOUFAN GROUP LLC: For the last seven years, it has not been easy objecting to these methods when they have powerful backers. I stood up then for the same reasons I'm willing to take on critics now, because I took an oath swearing to protect this great nation. I could not stand by quietly while our country's safety is endangered and our moral standing damaged.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: All right, now, here's what we know about Ali Soufan.
Prior to 9/11 he investigated and supervised several high-profile terrorism cases including the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. the bombing attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and he has interrogated senior members of al Qaeda, including Abu Zubaydah as you just heard.
Now, Soufan is a Lebanese-American who was born and grew up in Beirut. He joined the FBI in 1997 and he's now chief of his own consulting group.
Pushing forward on casualties of stress in Iraq. The GI accused of gunning down five fellow troops at a combat stress clinic on Monday had been sent there by his commander, who believed that John Russell needed help. Sergeant Russell's father says he wasn't counseling so much as abused. Wilburn Russell spoke with our Ed Lavandera in Sherman, Texas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILBURN RUSSELL, SGT. JOHN RUSSELL'S FATHER: They were stressing him, they broke him, you know? They really lied. They told him. You're an idiot. You don't belong in here. We're going to break you. We're going to get you out of here.
ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's what other Army officers were telling him?
RUSSELL: No, that's what the stress test technicians were telling him. They just follow orders.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, Private First Class Michael Yates Jr. was killed in Monday's attack. He was 19 years old, from the eastern shore of Maryland and he, too, was getting treatment at Camp Liberty.
His parents say that he called home Sunday and mentioned Sergeant Russell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD VAN BLARGAN, PFC YATES' STEPFATHER: During the conversation with my wife on Mother's Day, he said that he had met a sergeant that was in his -- in his words, he was a very nice guy. He could deal with him, but he had some major issues. He was out there on -- on the branch hoping for somebody to help him. There wasn't a lot of conversation about him, but there was a comment about him, because he -- he respected his -- the upper echelon of the command.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Also killed was Navy Commander Charles Springle, a counselor who specialized in stress and duress from repeated tours of duty. A cousin spoke to one of our affiliates in North Carolina.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALTON DUDLEY, CMDR. SPRINGLE'S COUSIN: It's heartbreaking. It's heartbreaking to see it, to see how needlessly his life was taken, especially when it was by a fellow soldier.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, later this hour, you're going to meet the Marine who wrote the book on combat stress, and the toll that it takes years after combat ends.
Signs of a generation gap in how Americans think about bankruptcy. What's your take? Traumatic or just another tool in the kit? Carol Costello has our report.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Well, let's push forward and dig a little deeper now on the mental health schools in Texas and that investigation that's going on in to abuse allegations. Abel Herrero is a Texas state lawmaker whose district includes part of Corpus Christi. He's a children's health care advocate and is on the committee that investigates health services in Texas.
Great to have you, Representative.
And just bring our viewers up to date that might not have seen the piece just a couple minutes ago. Let's go ahead and take a look at this cell phone video of how these mentally disabled kids were encouraged to fight in this facility.
Now, actually, there is a version that has sound. You can actually hear employees encouraging these young men to fight.
When you saw this, I know that you heard about it, we all had heard about it, when you finally saw the cell phone video, how did you react?
ABEL HERRERO, TEXAS STATEHOUSE: It's deplorable. Heart- wrenching to see that individuals entrusted in caring for individuals with mental disables would breach that trust in caring for them. I think it's completely unacceptable that this would occur, and I think it's inexcusable that it would occur especially in a state-run facility.
PHILLIPS: So, tell me what you're doing about this.
HERRERO: Well, one of them -- one of the things we're doing obviously is working with the superintendent of the schools to make certain that emergency measures are put in place so that we immediately put a stop to any sort of abuse, neglect or exploitation of our state's most vulnerable population.
In Austin specifically, as a member of the appropriations committee, I was strongly advocating and have been and will continue to advocate for the restoration of funds necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of the state's most vulnerable population.
Also...
PHILLIPS: From what I under -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
HERRERO: No, another thing is that we have an emergency measure that we're passing to the legislation that further reforms the oversight and accountability of state-run facilities of persons with disabilities, but then also community-based settings as it pertains to persons with mental disabilities as well.
PHILLIPS: More oversight, obviously we want to see that. We want to see more inspections of these facilities. What about the hiring process of the people that are brought in there to take care of these people that can't take care of themselves?
HERRERO: That's one thing that we've brought, obviously, to light with agency officials. Explaining to them that it's important that we have programs in place to ensure that we're hiring qualified individuals. That the individuals that were hired before, that there be a system in place that identifies these individuals that are not interested in caring for persons with disabilities.
I know that it's noted that of the 11 that are subject of the investigation, six of which have been indicted. That four of all of those 11 had had limited experience in providing direct care, experience with persons with disabilities. That, of those individuals, some had had prior violations of misconduct as it pertains to providing services to persons with disabilities.
And so the measures that we're passing through the legislation are measures that will further ensure the safety and well-being of our state's most vulnerable population and to ensure that this never happens again.
PHILLIPS: I think that's exactly what people want to hear, because when you see that video, your stomach just cringes. Texas Representative Abel Herrero, appreciate your time, we'll definitely be following up on what you're doing, because we really do want to see major changes in the system. Thank you so much.
HERRERO: Thank you.
PHILLIPS: All right, we're going to take you live now to the White House press briefing. Robert Gibbs commented on the decision that we just learned, about the Obama administration not wanting to release those additional photos of detainee abuse.
Let's go ahead and listen in.
ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I will -- I will go back and -- I looked at part of that a few days ago. I have not seen the full -- but I'll be happy to take a look at it.
QUESTION: The question is, are you concerned that it would cause a backlash against our troops in harm's way? You said that -- that the president has done a lot of back-and-forth in his mind over the course of several weeks about ensuring that this protected those that keep us safe, that it protects our national security. The president came to the determination that the decision that he made with consistent with all those criteria.
GIBBS: Well, the president reflected on -- on this case and believes that they have the potential to pose harm to our troops.
QUESTION: Was he pressured by the military?
GIBBS: No. In fact, this was brought up -- his decision was brought up with General Odierno yesterday at the end of their meeting, the meeting that General Odierno and Ambassador Hill had with the president. The president brought this up at the end of the meeting to inform General Odierno of his decision.
Obviously, there has been concern -- there was certainly concern throughout the process by -- by folks that -- the harm that could be caused by the release.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
GIBBS: I think they have. But I would also say the president believes a couple of other things. Understand that the existence of these investigations are -- I don't know the exact address, but they're on the DOD Web site. The president believes that the release of these photos will also provide a disincentive for detainee abuse investigation.
The photos don't denote the existence of the investigations. They're simply part of the potential evidence in the cases that have been finished since 2004.
But if in each of these instances somebody looking into detainee abuse takes evidentiary photos in a case that's -- that's eventually concluded, that this could provide a tremendous disincentive to take those photos and investigate that abuse.
I would also add, lastly...
QUESTION: Try -- try that once again. I don't follow you. What's the -- where's the disincentive?
GIBBS: The disincentive is in the notion that every time one of these photos is taken, that it's going to be released -- that nothing is added by the release of the photo, right? The existence of the investigation is not increased because of the release of the photo. It's just to provide, in some ways, a sensationalistic portion of that investigation.
These are all investigations that were undertaken by the Pentagon and have been concluded. But the -- I think if every time somebody took a picture of detainee abuse, if every time that -- if any time any of those pictures were mandatorily going to be necessarily released, despite the fact that they were being investigated, I think that would provide a disincentive to take those pictures and investigate.
QUESTION: Robert, how do you square this, since -- you used the term "sensationalistic." How do you square that with your frequent comments about greater transparency? I mean, that seems completely at odds.
GIBBS: No, again, the existence of the detainee abuse cases is not denoted by the photos. Their evidence contains -- or evidence is part of those investigations.
The existence of the cases are on the Web site. They're on the DOD Web site, OK? So the notion that somehow you don't know about these investigations because you haven't seen the photos doesn't make any sense.
QUESTION: But -- but you'd agree that you should allow photos, for example, the troops that are killed in action coming back to Dover Air Force Base?
GIBBS: No, no, again, let's -- let's be precise. The president and the secretary left it up to those involved in those cases for families to determine whether or not they wanted to make the ceremony open to the press or not.
QUESTION: Well, the point I'm trying to make is that you have -- you're saying that -- you've acknowledged that the existence of photographs can be a compelling component of understanding what's going on in any given situation and, in the name of transparency...
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: The president doesn't believe that the release of these photos adds in any way to that. It only adds to -- to pose harm.
QUESTION: Robert?
GIBBS: Yes?
QUESTION: Can you go over the sequence of events that led to this thought process? Because, on April 24th, when the Pentagon was explaining its decision to release the photos, it said that -- the spokesman said that there was a feeling that the case had pretty much run its course.
GIBBS: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: And now you're saying that the president feels that there's a strong argument to be made...
GIBBS: Because the argument that the president has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case. They argued a couple of different things, including, a law enforcement exception. And the judge ruled that, to seek a law enforcement exception, you have to -- you have to disclose the name of the person that would be -- that harm would be derived for in seeking that exception.
This is a different argument that the president thinks is compelling.
QUESTION: Well, when did he decide that it was important to make that argument? Did one of the lawyers come to him and say...
GIBBS: No. He came to the lawyers.
QUESTION: And when did all that...
GIBBS: That was a meeting that was held last week in the Oval Office.
ED HENRY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Robert, if that was such a compelling case, why was that not weighed in April then? Because it seems like -- was there a failure here at the White House in the first go-round in April to fully weigh the national security implications?
GIBBS: The argument that the president seeks to make is one that hasn't been made before. The -- I'm not going to get into blame for this or that. Understanding that there was significant legal momentum in these cases prior to the president entering into office, we are now at a point where it is likely that some stay will be asked to prevent the release of these photos. And I believe the date -- I think we have until June 8th to appeal -- to seek review of those decisions by the Second Circuit.
HENRY: But on April 24th, you also said, quote, "The Department of Justice decided, based on the ruling, the court ruling, is that it was, quote, hopeless to appeal."
GIBBS: Right.
HENRY: Now you're saying it's not hopeless.
GIBBS: Well, based on the argument that -- yes, I said that it was hopeless based on the argument that was made during the course of the original FOIA lawsuit, the appeal, the three-judge ruling, and the decision to decline the full circuit to make that -- to make those determinations.
The president isn't -- what I'm saying to you, Ed, is the president isn't going back to remake the argument that has been made. The president is going -- has asked his legal team to go back and make a new argument based on national security.
HENRY: This new argument -- if you're saying, basically, that this could put troops in further harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, Former Vice President Cheney, General Hayden, others have made the same argument about releasing the so-called torture memos.
Do you have any regrets about putting those memos out? They've made the same argument about them?
HENRY: No. Well, I'll use the example I've used on this before, Ed. You didn't begin to report on enhanced interrogation techniques at the release of the OLC memos, did you?
QUESTION: No.
GIBBS: OK. The -- I'm saying...
HENRY: (Inaudible)
GIBBS: Hold on. I'm also sensing that the graphic that CNN uses to denote what happens when somebody gets waterboarded wasn't likely developed based on reading memos that were released three weeks ago. The existence of enhanced interrogation techniques were noted by the former administration in speeches that they gave. You read about the enhanced interrogation techniques in autobiographies written by members of that former administration.
The notion...
HENRY: The graphics would not also be based on any prisoner photos you might release because we already know that people were abused in prisons. So why not put them out there?
GIBBS: I'm not sure that you'd do a graphic of a photo.
HENRY: No. A graphic of someone being abused. We've all seen Abu Ghraib photos, and you were saying about the photos back in April, lack, it's already exhausted and, essentially, these photos are going to come out anyway.
GIBBS: Based on the previous legal argument, yes. The previous legal argument denoted that the case had been lost. There's a new legal argument that's being made.
My sense is, Ed, why do you do a graphic on CNN?
HENRY: We're trying to show people -- explain to people...
GIBBS: OK. The president believes that the existence of the photos themselves does not actually add to the understanding that detainee abuse happened, was investigated, that actions were taken by those that did, indeed, or might have undertaken potential abuse of detainees. And those cases were all dating back to finishing in 2004.
The president doesn't believe the release of a photo surrounding that investigation does the anything to illuminate the existence of that investigation, only to provide some portion of sensationality.
QUESTION: Robert, is that really his role to decide whether or not it illuminates? That's not the president of the United States' role to decide, well, this is information will illuminate for the people, and this information isn't.
GIBBS: No, the -- the -- the role of the president in this situation is as commander-in-chief. And if he determines that, through the release of these photos, that they pose a threat to those that serve to protect our freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan through the illumination of whatever, he can make a determination to ask his legal team to go back to court and make a legal argument that he doesn't believe was made and provides the most salient case and most important points for not releasing these photos.
Those determinations are, indeed, made by this president and -- and -- and are being made.
Just put it on vibrate, man. We did this before.
(LAUGHTER)
That's all right. That's all right. Third, actually. It happened twice that one day.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: The Bush administration has obviously made the argument that releasing these specific photographs will endanger troops, and they did so in the way that you described, with -- with seeking the FOIA exemption for law enforcement personnel.
GIBBS: Right.
QUESTION: The second circuit court ruled against that, saying that -- that it's not meant -- that exemption is not intended, quote, "as all-purpose damper on global controversy." What is this new argument that the president wants his team to present?
GIBBS: That not seeking an exception for law enforcement -- give me the phone.
(LAUGHTER)
All right? This is -- here. Let me see it.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
GIBBS: (OFF-MIKE)
(LAUGHTER)
I'll be right back.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Wow.
QUESTION: Whoa.
QUESTION: He threw your phone.
GIBBS: No, no. Somebody caught it. Don't worry.
I made the determination that the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the press secretary to the president of the United States.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
(LAUGHTER)
GIBBS: You, too? Do you want to do it, too? Here, come on. (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Yes, Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea.
QUESTION: No favoritism. He's not here. Let me -- I'll explain later.
GIBBS: Yes, there you go. All right. Thank you.
QUESTION: Oh.
(LAUGHTER)
GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that? Sorry. This is -- there's cotton candy down the street. It's a circus.
The president believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court to make. That's the -- the case that the legal team will now make.
The Department of Justice will seek to look for different avenues, as I said earlier, likely seek a stay...
QUESTION: With the Supreme Court?
GIBBS: Well, you can seek a stay with an additional judge. Then the June 8 deadline also is for -- for an appeal to the Supreme Court. And -- and that's likely the next -- golly, guys, just put them on vibrate.
QUESTION: Robert...
QUESTION: I'm sorry. And can I...
(CROSSTALK)
GIBBS: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: The specific avenue that your -- that your legal team's going to go, you're not sure if it's going to be going back to the district court or...
GIBBS: I don't know the -- I'll check with -- put that -- we'll check with -- with those guys specifically. I think, in some ways, they're looking at whether it is to go to a lower court or to go to the Supreme Court.
QUESTION: And then just to follow up on the new argument, so are there specific -- is there specific case law arguments that the president knows that exist that were not used? Because it's -- I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration didn't turn under every rock to try to find an argument to do this.
GIBBS: Well, the president doesn't believe that was the case. And the president, after reviewing the case, believes that -- that we have a compelling argument.
QUESTION: Could you let us know what those new arguments are?
GIBBS: Yes.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Is part of his concern here, though, that this would open the floodgates for new calls for investigations?
GIBBS: No.
QUESTION: And what does this mean for his stance on whether more memos should be release and that type of thing?
GIBBS: Well, I'd -- I'm not sure that this case is necessarily analogous, and -- and I wouldn't want to draw broad conclusions not based on some specificity.
QUESTION: What is his current stance on whether there should be an investigation?
GIBBS: Well, I think we covered that a few weeks ago.
QUESTION: We covered it, but...
GIBBS: Well, I should say that it hasn't changed since we last covered it.
QUESTION: ... he's sort of -- he's sort of gone back and forth on that issue. I mean, he sort of left the door open to it but then...
GIBBS: No, no, no.
QUESTION: But then you signaled...
GIBBS: We'll do this again. The president believes that the determination about whether or not anybody broke the law should be made by those who determine whether or not anybody broke the law. And that, in this case, would be the Department of Justice.
QUESTION: But should there be any kind of congressional panel looking into this? At one stage, you raised the idea of a 9/11 type of...
GIBBS: Yes. I think the president -- and I have said this before. The president believes a lot of this is being investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee, that that's an avenue and a venue that possesses, because of clearances and such, a broad ability to conduct the -- an investigation and thinks that an appropriate place for it to be.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: On the argument that this would -- that release of the photos would be a disincentive into investigations, wouldn't it also be a disincentive into detainee abuse? And on those investigations, we don't -- because they were administrative rather than judicial, we don't know the outcome of a lot of those investigations.
GIBBS: Right. On the first part -- I can certainly check with the Pentagon on part two.
Look, I think you could certainly argue that it hasn't all been the case because, obviously, there continued to be cases, regrettably, of detainee abuse. But at the same time, if each and every photo that is taken, regardless of whether that -- regardless of the fact that it doesn't actually add to the notion that these cases are being looked into, the president believes provides that disincentive.
On behalf of CBS, Mark, you're now the sole representative for the...
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: How is this decision on the photo -- photos consistent with what he said on his second day in office. I will hold myself as president to a new standard of openness. Information will not be withheld just because I say so.
GIBBS: Oh, look at that. That got a hmm.
Because, Mark, the president has, in this case -- welcome back.
QUESTION: What did I miss?
GIBBS: You didn't -- you didn't, yes.
Will somebody brief Bill on our new Supreme Court nominee?
(LAUGHTER)
Because -- again, the president, as I said to Jake's question, the president made this determination as the commander-in-chief. Made this determination as somebody who is charged with protecting our men and women in harm's way. That's why this determination was made. That's why he's asked the legal team to go back to court.
QUESTION: So this statement is for civilian matters and not for national security matters?
GIBBS: No. I think, again, Mark, as I said, I don't think the -- the existence of the photos does not denote -- isn't the only thing that denotes the existence of an investigation. The Web site includes documentation that -- that underscores the potential abuse that was being investigated through the year 2004.
The president doesn't believe that the existence publicly of the photos adds to that.
QUESTION: I want to change topics for just, I'm sure, what will be a brief moment.
GIBBS: Uh-huh.
(LAUGHTER)
30 seconds to respond. No, I'm kidding.
QUESTION: Former SEC chairman, Arthur Levitt, today said that when it comes to the government imposing executive compensation restrictions across all of the whole financial services industry, it can't work; it won't work, and that the government shouldn't be micromanaging in this way.
Why does the president think that it will work now? And why is he OK with such micromanaging?
GIBBS: Well, I don't know necessarily want to buy into the premise of Mr. Levitt in this case. I think the president has -- has talked about repeatedly in previous years and as well as this year and set up a standard for what makes sense in terms of executive compensation.
Certainly, related to companies or financial institutions receiving extraordinary assistance from the government...
QUESTION: These are the firms that don't receive extraordinary...
GIBBS: Right. I think the president has outlined his thinking on the notion that -- and I don't think the exact figures in front of me, but I think you can see, over a several year period, if you go back, executive compensation, as it related to the average worker in a business, that has ballooned in only a short period of time, that there is a -- there is an important interest in ensuring some fairness in this and in giving -- as the president has talked about, giving shareholders some -- some say in, ultimately, the type of compensation that their executives receive.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) hedge funds, private equity firms?
GIBBS: Well, I -- I would point you to Treasury for the notion of -- of what they're looking at. Obviously, the -- the "say on pay" provisions that the president has supported are not -- are not legally binding, but through the court of public opinion might have an impact on some of that.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: A couple on the photos, and then on a separate topic.
GIBBS: OK.
QUESTION: The president's been commander-in-chief throughout his presidency, since January 20th. What is it about his role as commander-in-chief that occurred to him differently after the White House announced, the Pentagon said it was going to, the Justice Department reaffirmed the decision to release these photos?
Did he -- are you telling us there was an inadequate weighing of the national security implications before and there's now been a more intensive one more recently?
GIBBS: Well, I don't know exactly the -- I don't know the exact -- exacting of that, except to say that the president has spent a considerable amount of time thinking about this specific instance recently. That's why the meeting was had last week in the Oval Office with his legal team.
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: ... that more intensive or whatever, how you describe it...
GIBBS: Let me seek to check, yes.
QUESTION: OK. And did the president come up with this idea of -- of a national security argument? Or did someone bring it to him and did he say, "That's the path I want to go down"?
GIBBS: I -- as I understand it, the president, in reviewing this, didn't believe that the case that was being made was the most effective on the grounds of national security -- yes?
QUESTION: Who was the originator of the idea to take this case back and make the national security arguments?
GIBBS: The meeting was had -- the meeting specifically was had to bring the legal team in to inform them and others of a change in the way this case would be handled and that the president discussed directly with them the notion that they'd be making a different argument than one that he believed had previously been made.
QUESTION: So the argument being made is his? OK, separate topic. The National Rifle Association's going to meet this weekend.
GIBBS: Yes.
QUESTION: And they tout that their membership has increased 30 percent since the president was inaugurated. And they say that's because there is some palpable anxiety, legitimate or otherwise, that people have about their gun rights.
I'd like you to address that generally. What does -- what does the White House think about that? What's erroneous or misguided about that particular impression out there?
And more specifically, Senator Feinstein has committed publicly to bringing the assault weapons ban to the floor of the Senate and pursuing that legislatively this year. If that were to pass the Congress, would the president sign or veto that?
GIBBS: Let's -- I think the president's views on the support of an assault weapons ban, as he said in the campaign, are known. As we've been reminded repeatedly in this room, there's a lot of stuff on the docket. And I think the president, certainly in a recent trip to Mexico, covered his thinking on that.
In terms of increased membership at the NRA, I don't -- obviously, I'm not privy to their statistics. I think -- I think -- I think, if you go back and look at most previous presidential elections, I think the very same people that you might be talking to argued that stances cost Democratic nominees the chances of being president of the United States.
And I think the president -- this president articulated the viewpoint that he was a believer in the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. And I don't think -- I don't believe that his actions have denoted anything that would give the NRA members cause for concern.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on the assault weapons ban, you said yesterday, you need a legislative vehicle to engage more directly on the question of "don't ask, don't tell." There's going to be a legislative vehicle on the assault weapons ban. If it gets there, what's going to happen?
GIBBS: When you changed the word "if" to "is," then we'll get into the hypothetical.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Robert, first, when did the president see these pictures?
GIBBS: I don't -- I know he has seen them. I don't know the first day he saw them.
QUESTION: And do you know if they're qualitatively different, the content, than what we've seen so far?
GIBBS: You mean, as far as the Abu Ghraib? I personally have not seen the pictures. I can certainly seek to find somebody who has or seek to find -- seek to see the pictures myself.
QUESTION: One more quick thing. What does the president think that the release of the OLC memos, what new light did that shed on the debate about which books have been written about and...
GIBBS: Well, I think any number of things.
PHILLIPS: As you hear from Robert Gibbs here at the White House briefing, President Barack Obama ordering government lawyers that those additional detainee pictures not be released. Robert Gibbs saying these detainee photos are evidence to investigations, ongoing investigations about abuse. That they shouldn't be released. That there is nothing added by the release of these photos, it just provides a sensationalistic part of the investigation. Also pointing out the concern that the release of the photos could put U.S. troops in danger. And then the briefing took a little bit of a lighter turn there when the cell phone of one of the reporters went off. John Gizzi at "Human Events," conservative newspaper, made quite a scene and caused our newsroom to laugh as well.
Let's take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIBBS: That not seeking an exception for law enforcement -- give me the phone.
(LAUGHTER)
All right? This is -- here. Let me see it.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
GIBBS: (OFF-MIKE)
(LAUGHTER)
I'll be right back.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Wow.
QUESTION: Whoa.
QUESTION: He threw your phone.
GIBBS: No, no. Somebody caught it. Don't worry.
I made the determination that the illumination of the sound was distracting to the briefing as the press secretary to the president of the United States.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
(LAUGHTER)
GIBBS: You, too? Do you want to do it, too? Here, come on.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Yes, Gibbs wants to take my phone, but I don't think it's a good idea.
QUESTION: No favoritism. He's not here. Let me -- I'll explain later.
GIBBS: Yes, there you go. All right. Thank you.
QUESTION: Oh.
(LAUGHTER)
GIBBS: I assume it's your banker, with a suit like that? Sorry. This is -- there's cotton candy down the street. It's a circus.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: That was Bill Plant by the way with CBS. We were thinking he was kind of living up to the name and planted that after John Gizzi got his phone taken away. Anyway, a lighter moment at the briefing. We're all enjoyed it.
We're moving right along. Not all combat leaves scars. Stress is a mortal danger to U.S. troops and it doesn't go away when the troops come home. We're talking more about it today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: Well, stress kills. We all know that. But it's not supposed to be violent. This week's deadly rampage at a combat stress clinic Baghdad is prompting two investigations; one on the crime itself, another on the military approach to mental health care.
The Army sergeant now facing five counts of murder had been sent by his commander for counseling, but his family in Texas says, that did more harm than good. John Russell's father said Army counselors broke his son.
Russell's son is just confused.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN RUSSELL, SGT. RUSSELL'S SON: I think that they just got to him, and he just couldn't take it. And I don't know, you know, a whole lot about it, but it's not him that, you know, that did something like that, you know, it's not subconsciously. Something in his mind just -- just went off and he just had no control over it is what I think.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, as we mentioned, Sergeant Russell was near the end of his third tour in Iraq. That raises a crucial question, could the practice of multiple rotations be linked to this tragedy?
Here's CNN's Pentagon correspondent Chris Lawrence.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRIS LAWRENCE, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Senior Defense official says Sergeant John Russell's commander not only thought he was troubled but that he was, quote, "a threat to himself and others."
So, a week before the shooting, the commander took away his weapon and referred him to Camp Liberty's stress clinic.
A top U.S. general in Baghdad admits there's still a stigma to mental health issues, so that may have been challenging for Sergeant Russell.
MAJ. GEN. DANIEL BOLGER, MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION, BAGHDAD: He's a noncommissioned officer and all that kind of stuff so, I mean, you know, he's in a leadership capacity, and to make that trip down there, is a tough decision for either him or his chain of command to make.
LAWRENCE: A senior Defense official said Russell became hostile and had to be escorted out of the clinic. Later, one official says, Russell assaulted another soldier, seized his weapon and vehicle, then came back to the clinic and killed five fellow American troops, including U.S. Navy Commander Charles Springle.
A lot of troops have deployed multiple times and Russell was on his third tour in Iraq. A 2008 Army study found soldiers on their third or fourth deployment have significantly lower morale and more mental health problems. And those that have treated troops in the say, it can compromise a soldier's ability to release stress and deal with everyday problems.
CAPT. EDWARD SIMMER, DEFENSE CENTERS FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH: So each time you go, that stress adds up. So we know that, as a person deploys multiple times, especially in a combat situation, they can get into more and more difficulty with stress, if they're not well prepared.
LAWRENCE (on camera): We're also learning more about that Navy officer who was killed. Commander Springle was commissioned more than 20 years ago. He served multiple tours overseas, but this was his first tour in Iraq. He just got to the country in January and had been working with the medical company there in Baghdad for the past few months.
Chris Lawrence, CNN, the Pentagon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIPS: For many troops, post-traumatic stress disorder is the war that never ends and my next guest knows it well. Clint Van Winkle was a Marine that fought in Iraq in 2003 and came home a very different man. His memoirs called "Soft Spots." He joins me now live from Norfolk, Virginia.
Clint, you know, one thing that you write about is that when you get in country, when you get into Iraq, you're told to pen your death letter. And this is the letter that's sent home to your family and your loved ones if you die. I mean, does that send a message right off the bat that you are just conditioned to understand that, you know, getting out alive, well, it's going to be 50/50 for you?
CLINT VAN WINKLE, IRAQ VET WITH PTSD: I think when you join the military, you have that understanding, or at least you should if you're in a combat MOS. Death is possible. PHILLIPS: And does that immediately put you in sort of a bizarre mindset when you think about the risk and the stress that comes with that risk and the anxiety and everything else that can build up when you think about death?
VAN WINKLE: As soon as you start training you know there is that possibility. You don't join the Marine Corps expect it all to be easy days.
PHILLIPS: Now, when you got home, you told me that -- or you write about, rather, that your experiences never left your mind. What kind of experiences are you talking about?
VAN WINKLE: The combat experiences, firefights, things like that. They stay with you when you see certain things, it's hard to release those images.
PHILLIPS: You mentioned even shooting a little Iraqi girl by mistake. What happened?
VAN WINKLE: I'm not exactly sure. I'm not sure if I shot her. It's an image that's stayed with me for a few years.
PHILLIPS: So, you came home, and you said you started to snap. Define that for me.
VAN WINKLE: Just angry all the time, drinking. It just felt like I was losing control of my life.
PHILLIPS: Did you ever feel homicidal?
VAN WINKLE: No, I didn't feel homicidal or suicidal. But you never know when you're going to reach that point. You know, you see these guys getting there, and so I made a decision to go get some help.
PHILLIPS: So, you didn't go as far as John Russell, obviously. I mean, he's being charged for murder now. But can you relate to him in any way, after hearing about this story and hearing about him opening fire in this stress clinic?
VAN WINKLE: Not at all.
PHILLIPS: Not at all.
VAN WINKLE: No.
PHILLIPS: Why not?
VAN WINKLE: That's your main support group are the troops and I can't imagine opening fire on anybody, you know, especially the guys that are there with you supporting you.
PHILLIPS: So, do you think it's more than just combat stress, then?
VAN WINKLE: I think so.
PHILLIPS: So, were there stress clinics when you were there in Iraq?
VAN WINKLE: No. I was there in 2003, and we were the initial invasion, so there wasn't much of anything.
PHILLIPS: So -- OK. So, well, that's interesting. At any time did you think, boy, I wish I had someone to turn to, I wish I had somebody to talk to?
VAN WINKLE: I never felt that way. I never really felt any symptoms of PTSD until after war.
PHILLIPS: So, why did you write this book?
VAN WINKLE: I was trying to figure out what was going on in my head and I just started writing.
PHILLIPS: Was it therapy for you?
VAN WINKLE: Yes, it was therapy and it helped me to open up to myself, and then to put it out there and hopefully it can help other people.
PHILLIPS: Well, I was reading when you came back and you did seek help and you were pretty disappointed. Tell me what happened at the VA hospital?
VAN WINKLE: I'm not sure the VA is ready for everything they have to face. And I kept on going back to the VA over and over again and never got the help I needed and I finally went to a vet center in Phoenix, Arizona, and the veterans helped me.
PHILLIPS: So, what does the military have to do when you - just looking at your own experience and seeing what happened with sergeant Russell opening up fire in the stress clinic? I mean, what does the military need to do now if you can sit down and advise the president or the head of the VA, what would you say?
VAN WINKLE: Well, I mean, when you look at the military and the VA, those are two different things. I think the military has done a good job. I think the VA can learn a lot from the military. I mean, we've had one shooting out of all this time, so I think they're doing a pretty good job.
PHILLIPS: Clint Van Winkle, the book is "Soft Spots: A Marine's Memoire of Combat and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder." And if you don't know what a soft spot is, read the book.
Clint, thanks.
VAN WINKLE: Thank you.
PHILLIPS: Well, you know, the term like mother, like daughter. Well, take that cliche and turn it upside down. We've got a case of like daughter, like mother. Her wish granted by a plastic surgeon.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: The bell does not toll for thee any more, if you are Arizona Bishop Rick Boehner. He has just been convicted of a noise violation for this...
(AUDIO CLIP OF CHURCH BELLS)
Isn't that horrible? Some of the church's neighbors had filed complaints with the city about those bells. They said the hourly church bells are too loud, disturbing, even keep them captive in their homes. Our Phoenix affiliate KXNV brought out a decibel meter and actually did some tests. Well, the church bells were actually quieter than traffic noise in that area.
Well, we've heard about beauty pageant moms, cheerleading moms. You know, the moms that live vicariously through their beautiful daughters. Well, get a-load of this. Which came first the cougar or the cub? We're having trouble telling, too.
Wait a minute, that's the wrong picture, guys, let's rerack that, there we go!
We have trouble telling that, too. This is actually Janet Kunlip (ph). She didn't think she was looking too hot at 50, so guess what, instead of a makeover she did a $15,000 plastic-over. Not just run- of-the-mill breast, eyelid nose and lip jobs. Janet asked her doctor to make her look just like her 29-year-old daughter. This is just weird, folks. What is this anyway? Reverse cloning? "Nip/Tuck" meets "Freaky Friday"? Well, I think it's just a case of Janet pole vaulting into a bit of a panic.
All right, now let's bring up the right picture. That's my mom. She's almost 70 years old and she's a babe! And I wouldn't mind looking like her right now.
Team Sanchez working on the next hour of NEWSROOM. You met my mom.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Do you know who is really cool, too, is your dad. Last week when he was here, he and I were speaking to each other, and do you know what language you were speaking?
PHILLIPS: Espanol. He says, you know what? That Rick Sanchez he's got some good Spanish. You must have grown up in Cuba.
SANCHEZ: He listen, speaking of growing up in the part of the world where Cuba is, there's a pretty serious story that's going on right now. We've got it in here on router 145. See if you can find it. It's a boat off the coast of Boyton Beach, those are my old stomping grounds, and man, I've covered stories like this in the past and they're very serious. Do you know how serious it is to get out there lost at sea?
Apparently there was a boat out there. It had something like 28 people on board, it's capsized. They can't even find the boat.
I think we've got some - OK, some of the people on one of the Coast Guard cutters that have now been rescued. You can kind of see them. We believe -- and this is not confirmed. We believe that they may have been Haitian migrants, who were making their way into these waters when suddenly their boat capsized.
As you know, Kyra, sometimes these are rickety boats that they use sometimes to get away from Haiti, which is one of the most poor countries in the western hemisphere. We don't - this is a developing story. We're covering it as we speak. We don't know how many have been saved. We don't know how many have possibly have been drowned. But we know it is a very crazy scene out there right now with boaters and fishermen being told by the Coast Guard to see if they can come over and help. We've seen a ton of boats in the area so far. We've seen at least two cutters and we've seen people being taken out of the water off of Boyton Beach.
We're going to be on top of this story. And certainly, we'll have the latest for you right here at 3:00.
My best to your mom and dad, by the way.
PHILLIPS: Awww, they loved you, too. Hey, did you see what happened at the White House briefing?
SANCHEZ: Wow, it was crazy.
PHILLIPS: John Gizzi with the "Human Events," conservative newspaper. Yup , the phone. Apparently, he's a repeat offender. His phone, his phone has gone off a number of times during the briefings. Well, today Robert Gibbs took his phone away from him, apparently he just got it back.
There you go. Look at it. He's probably checking to see, OK, did anybody look at my numbers. Did anybody make any calls? Oh, boy, I don't have any text messages that they could have read. And there's Ed Henry, wasn't a happy guy. He was like come on, get real, it's disrespectful.
We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIPS: President Obama coming forward saying he doesn't want the additional detainee pictures released. Getting support now from Robert Gates. He just made comments.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: A couple of things have changed on that. First, I think is, as you suggest, a willingness of the president to take this on. But second, and perhaps what's motivated my own change of heart on this and perhaps influenced the president, is that our commanders, both General McKiernan and General Odierno, have expressed very serious reservations about this, and their very great worry that release of these photographs will covet American lives. That was all it took for me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, we're spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays and lesbians out of the military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab language capabilities that we desperately need. Well, a strong quote from then-candidate Barack Obama against the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Almost four months into his presidency, though, the policy is still in place and another highly qualified gay soldier with Arabic capabilities has just been kicked out of the military.
First Lieutenant Dan Choi told Anderson Cooper how he's going to push forward.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": What happens next? You're going to fight this.
FIRST LT. DAN CHOI, NEW YORK ARMY NATIONAL GUARD: Right. Fight this tooth and nail. I'm going to go up and there's going to be a be a board of officers, and I'm going to explain to them, I'm still gay. You know, I'm here, I'm ready to serve.
COOPER: If they do, in fact, go through and discharge you, what will you do? Because you could leave now with an honorable discharge, but you could risk not getting an honorable discharge.
CHOI: That's right. One of the choices is, you know, just shut up, you know, and go away and we'll give you an honorable and it will be comfortable. And really I want to continue speaking out, I want to continue reminding all the soldiers. If there's anyone that's listening right now, a gay soldier, I just wanted to tell them that you are honorable and you're not alone. There's so many of us that are serving and it's an important time to be serving right now, in a time of war. And I can't promise anything myself, about legislation or when or any of that, I'm not a politician. But I will promise you that I will not shut up. And I will not be forced to be silent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIPS: Well, a lot of you have been speaking out on Twitter and our blog.
MelodyMusic (ph) said, "Why does sexual preference matter to some people? It doesn't define a person or their abilities, especially in time of war."
Sign50 (ph) says, "It sounds like the Army is losing a good soldier. When is this country going to get over it?"
RichFry12 (ph) says, "As long as the policy is don't ask, don't tell, what did he expect?"
And Jane wrote in to our CNN blog, "Dan Choi is a wonderful role model for all Americans. He's standing up for his rights, in an assertive, not in an aggressive manner. He's a class act and should be applauded. Thank you, Dan."
And thanks to all of you for your e-mails and your tweets.
We'll be back here tomorrow. Rick Sanchez takes it from here.
