Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Protests in Pakistan over bin Laden's Death; New Details on Raid; License to Kill
Aired May 04, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Eliot Spitzer. Welcome to the program.
Tonight, show us the body. That is the cry from angry crowds in Pakistan. They're demanding proof that Osama bin Laden is really dead. In the streets of Abbottabad, the city where Obama died, protesters are saying it's all an American lie. Hard to believe. More on this in a moment.
But first, a look at what we're digging into on tonight's program.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: We're a nation of laws. But did we assassinate bin Laden? Settling a score or a violation of principles?
And conspiracy theories. Some people say bin Laden is still alive? Is Osama the next Elvis? The sightings have already started.
Then. America's elite anti-terrorist commandos. SEAL Team 6.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sleep tight, sucker.
SPITZER: No, not a Chuck Norris movie. The guys that shot bin Laden. But E.D. Hill has been digging and she says they may have had some help. Stay tuned.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SPITZER: Now more on our top story tonight. I want to show you more video shot on the streets of Pakistan today. You see those people holding a banner? It's written in Urdu, but here's the translation. "Osama is alive."
They're burning U.S. flags, calling Americans dogs, and doubting Osama bin Laden is dead.
Let's go live to Abbottabad, Pakistan now where we're joined by CNN senior international correspondent Nic Robertson.
Nic, tell me about those protests and who is leading them.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's lawyers here, amazingly enough, in this city who are protesting. I spoke to the president of the bar association here today. He said 400 to 500 lawyers came out, protesting what they called an American attack on the compound.
I asked him about this. He said they don't believe that bin Laden was living here, that they believe that this operation was all to bolster President Obama's chances of reelection next year and he says he doesn't believe his own government as well. He thinks that the politicians here in Pakistan are also using this situation to further their own political advantages.
So you have this sort of influential, intellectual group in this city, who are saying unless they get a photograph, they won't believe that bin Laden's dead. And they actually want more than a photograph. They want the people in Pakistani government custody. The other family members. The wife. The daughter of bin Laden. To be shown publicly. And to hear them say yes, bin Laden actually lived here -- Eliot.
SPITZER: And Nic, give us a sense -- you are there, of course. All we see is some of the TV footage. Are these protests gaining traction? Are the crowds growing? Is this a growing movement day by day?
ROBERTSON: This is what the government here is worried about, but for every lawyer that you see on the streets here there are others who are not protesting. There are others who are happy that bin Laden is dead. His neighbors are happy that he's gone. They don't want something like that on their doorstep.
They know what he brings to this country. Thousands of Pakistanis have been killed over recent years because of Taliban and al Qaeda attacks here. And people want a better life. They want improved economy, improved security.
I talked to a doctor here and he said, look, let's put this behind us. Let's build a good relationship with the United States. They're funding a lot of our schools here. Let's have more of that. Let's use this to improve the lives of people in Pakistan.
So yes, the government worries that this sort of angry element will gain traction, but for all of those you see on the streets, there are plenty of others here who just want a better life -- Eliot.
SPITZER: Nic, finally, what if anything has been heard from al Qaeda? Is there any voice? Is there any formal response? The members of al Qaeda who are still there saying we're ready to fight? Or are they back on their heels, recognizing not only that their leader has been killed but also that the United States now has a treasure trove of the information about them?
What, if anything, is the sense on street about al Qaeda?
ROBERTSON: Well, we know that these groups, these al Qaeda followers like to chat on some sort of jihadist forums, and there's mixed messages. Some are saying if you've got an attack ready, do it now. Others are saying no, we need to strike big, let's plan our attacks.
And others are saying, let's wait, let's see what comes out, let's see what the Americans are getting here. But interestingly, it seems to be that the jihadists are the ones that are accepting at the moment in some part that bin Laden is dead.
I spoke to a radical Islamist in London, a man you've interviewed on your show, Eliot, Anjem Choudary. He told me he's planning a protest in London. But he also told me that he believes -- and we know what kind of a rebel rouser he is. He believes that bin Laden is dead -- Eliot.
SPITZER: All right, Nic, thanks so much. You're right, Choudary is always planning a protest, it seems to be the only thing he can do.
All right, Nic, thanks so much. We'll be checking back with you later on.
So why did President Obama decide that the world should not see a picture of a dead Osama bin Laden? He explained his reasons in an interview with CBS. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's no doubt that we killed Osama bin Laden. It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence, as a propaganda tool. You know that's not who we are.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Propaganda tool or not, should the photos have been released?
I want to welcome back to the show two voices from the Islamic community. Mona Eltahawy is a columnist. She is joining me from Washington. And Hebah Ahmed is a writer for the blog Muslim Matters. She's in Albuquerque tonight.
Welcome to you both. And I just want to start with Hebah.
Hebah, you are a devout Muslim, as I think most people can see by your dress tonight. You're wearing a niqab and I just want folks to understand that.
Let me begin with you. Should the photos of the dead Osama bin Laden be released to the world so there's absolutely no dispute that he has met his maker?
HEBAH AHMED, BLOGGER, MUSLIMMATTERS.ORG: Thank you for having me on the show. I want to start out by saying, and I think Mona and I would both agree on this, that Osama bin Laden and his ideology is an extremism that does not represent Islam and does not represent the majority of peace-loving Muslims. And with that being said, I think that this issue is a little bit complicated because I think you have to weigh the pros and cons of releasing or not releasing. Hindsight is 20/20. And we unfortunately don't have that benefit. So I have to say that I do agree with our president, that I think that the negative outcome could actually outweigh the positive.
I think that personally these are going to be gory and gruesome pictures which I have no desire to see nor do I want my children or other person's children to see all over the Internet.
What I'm really afraid of is these people and -- that sympathize with Obama -- I mean, excuse me, with bin Laden to put up banners with pictures of his dead body and use that to rally more people around him. And I think that --
SPITZER: But Hebah -- let me interrupt for a moment only so I can give Mona a chance to jump in on this.
AHMED: OK.
SPITZER: And let me argue the other side for a moment. As you just heard, if you're able to hear the prior segment, there seems to be a growing movement in Pakistan at least that doubts that in fact bin Laden is dead.
Would not these photos resolve the issue and put to rest with finality and make it clear the leader of al Qaeda is gone and finished?
Mona, what do you think?
MONA ELTAHAWY, COLUMNIST ON MUSLIM ISSUES: Right. I have to say that that movement -- I mean the images that you showed in Pakistan represents a tiny majority of Pakistanis and Muslims because the majority of Muslims I know detested Osama bin Laden and what he represented and the way that he hijacked our religion and the way that he distorted everything that Islam represents and that what we're proud of.
I supposed releasing the pictures -- because of the conspiracy theories, there are some conspiracists, of course, who will never be satisfied with any kind of proof.
I have to add, though, that I don't know how much of his face is left to prove that it really is him who is dead when the pictures are released. But you have to remember that many people across the world distrust everything the U.S. administration says. And unless some kind of proof is presented, they will distrust it even more especially because the story of the -- the story of the raid itself is beginning to change already.
So I would have supported it. And remember that we see gruesome pictures all the time. We're seeing terribly gruesome pictures of what the Assad regime is doing to Syrian revolutionaries, we're seeing horrendous pictures of what the Gadhafi regime is doing to Libyan revolutionaries.
So I think people can make the choice for themselves. But I think because there's so much mistrusts, the U.S. administration should have released the pictures.
SPITZER: Hebah, what do you say to that? That we need to do something demonstrative, some tangible, something that is akin to what people ordinarily see on a TV show, to prove the case. You know, we're used to this what I call TV-level proof now. I used to be a prosecutor. And we're used to having crimes solved with something you can look at, touch, feel, smell.
Don't the folks in Pakistan who may be skeptic, they may be irrational, but don't they need to see something that is indisputable such as a picture, such as the DNA sample? What do you -- how do you respond to that?
AHMED: I think Mona brings up many good points. And I'm actually conflicted over this issue. But I don't think that picture of a man who's had multiple head wounds is going to be indisputable fact.
I think that in the age of Photoshop and the age of, you know, airbrushing, that it's not going to quell any conspiracy theories. If anything, I think that it's just going to produce more, yet they're going to have images in their hand to use for their recruitment.
I think that people are going to continue to believe what they believe. Some people think he's been dead for a long timed. And that they just chose now to say it. So I really think that the harm outweighs the good in this. And I think that our president knows the national security issues. And if he weighed it and he thinks that it could violate and harm our national security, then we need to trust him.
SPITZER: Mona, Hebah said something interesting a few moments ago. She said she thought the ideology of Osama bin Laden itself was dead. That ideology had run its course.
It was no longer a persuasive argument to either the children or whatever generation may have listened to it over the past couple of years. Do you agree with that? Do you think that his ideology is just finished and is now ready to be thrown in the scrap heap of history?
ELTAHAWY: Absolutely. It has been for a while, Eliot. I think bin Laden's physical death came several years after his symbolic death. Mostly because I think many Muslims around the world realize that his nihilistic violence has done nothing but kill thousands of Muslims around the world. Make the lives of Muslims around the world, especially in this country, hell, with profiling and the war on terror.
And between bin Laden and George Bush, Muslim lives in many countries have been turned into hell. And I also think that, you know, with the increasing uprisings in revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa, young people now, Muslim and non-Muslim, have a new model for change, that we can bring about change in the way that Egyptians brought about change peacefully.
We don't need to even consider this nihilistic violence. I think for the majority of Muslims around the world, bin Laden represented a terrible distortion of our religion and many people, many, much more than those you saw in those images in Pakistan, are relieved that he's dead.
There's a big difference between celebrating and relief. And most of us -- and I have to add that every single major Islamic group in North Americas that released a statement saying we are relieved that bin Laden is dead, good riddance, essentially.
SPITZER: Hebah, let me pick up on something Mona just said --
AHMED: Can I add something here?
SPITZER: Do you agree not only with that -- the notion that the ideology is dead but that what we are seeing in North Africa, in the Middle East, the revolutions that have swept that region, are they an affirmative response to bin Laden, saying no, we believe in freedom, tolerance, something other than the violence of bin Laden?
AHMED: Yes, I think that Mona is exactly right. I do believe that Osama bin Laden, his ideology, have been long marginalized in the Muslim and Arab world, and I think that here in the United States, we give him much more importance than over there. I think that it's ironic that his death comes at a time when the Muslim countries are showing peaceful pro-democracy movements coming about.
And I think that -- I hope that the victims of 9/11 and all of us who were traumatized by what happened on 9/11 can finally get closure, close this chapter in our life, and move on to something new, something where we all join the human family, we build bridges, we learn to know each other, and we go based on tolerance and knowledge, instead of fear and this black and white us versus them.
SPITZER: Mona, we only have a brief time left. How did you respond to the -- the joy that was expressed in the streets? The sort of flag waving, the cheers, the adulation down at Ground Zero Sunday night when it was announced that bin Laden was dead? Did that bother you in any sense? Did you think this is an affirmation of all that we believe and hear?
ELTAHAWY: Well, you know, I went to Ground Zero soon after President Obama spoke because I wanted to pay respect to the thousands of people who lost their lives both at Ground Zero, in other places in the U.S., Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in D.C., but also to victims of the war on terror across the world.
And I went there to say a prayer. I said the first chapter of the Koran there at (INAUDIBLE), at Ground Zero for everyone who's lost their lives.
But what I found there, Eliot, really dismayed me. It was basically a frat boy party that was a parity of team America. The film which itself was a parody of George Bush's gang hoe American nationalism and exceptionalism.
You know, people were cursing -- using curse words before Osama bin Laden's name. I don't care about him, good riddance to him, but you know it was like the Super Bowl. They were chanting, ole, ole, ole, at a place that is supposed to be hallowed ground.
And where Muslims -- remember last year, Muslims were told, you cannot build the Islamic community center two blocks away because this is hallowed ground, and yet they're on hallowed ground with these young people, you know, chanting ole, ole, ole, and using these awful words in a place where we should be paying respect.
So I was really dismayed. And America is better than this. It doesn't have to be this kind of triumphalism. We can say we're glad that Osama bin Laden is dead, but we should remember the thousands killed both here, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries that have suffered from both bin Laden and George Bush's war on terror, which I hope President Obama ends because it's time to close Guantanamo and it's time to stop committing these injustices that we should be better than. Because we must not descend to the levels --
SPITZER: Mona --
ELTAHAWY: -- that bin Laden took --
AHMED: Can I jump in here?
SPITZER: Hebah, absolutely. I'm just going to say before you do so, Mona, you raised a host of issues there that maybe we can visit some other day from Guantanamo on down.
But Hebah, respond if you would to how you reacted to what you saw at Ground Zero, either by being there or more likely, given that you're in Albuquerque, to watching it on TV.
AHMED: I have to say that when 9/11 happened, when I saw these scenes of Muslims celebrating in the street, it was so horrific to me and it was completely distasteful. And I think like Mona said, we -- Americans are better than this. We need to take a higher moral ground. We need to not celebrate death in this way and instead show people we that are humbled by these actions, that we are we reflective and that we decide to take a different path than our enemies.
SPITZER: Well, let me disagree with both of you for just a little bit on this. When I hear the sentiment you're expressing and you're both articulate and persuasive, having said that, this was a moment of joy that somebody who committed among the most vile acts in our history had finally paid a price and been captured and was no longer in a position to perpetrate more acts. And I think that was the outpouring of joy and satisfaction.
It was not a death as much as it was that we who believe in tolerance, freedom and justice --
AHMED: That's true.
SPITZER: -- had raised supreme.
AHMED: That's very valid.
SPITZER: And I think that's the way I view it, and that's why I sympathized and supported those -- not every word uttered, of course, but the sentiment down there at Ground Zero.
Anyway, Hebah, Mona, thank you for a fascinating conversation.
AHMED: Thank you.
SPITZER: Pleasure having you on the show.
ELTAHAWY: Thanks.
AHMED: Thank you.
SPITZER: Now E.D. Hill joins me to tell us what she's been working on. E.D.?
E.D. HILL, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: You're going to love this. The guy who created SEAL Team 6 is going to join us. And he's going to tell us the critical reason why even though the military was relaying the details of the mission to the president, they weren't running the show. The military was not running it.
Why was that so important? Who was?
SPITZER: Let me tell you, a guy who created SEAL Team 6 probably the toughest guy in the world, he probably eats nails for breakfast.
HILL: And he looks that way, too.
SPITZER: He looks that way -- all right. Thanks, E.D.
Coming up, did U.S. forces violate international law when they killed an unarmed bin Laden? A debate on American assassination when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: New information tonight coming out of Pakistan about what U.S. officials found in Osama bin Laden's compound. Bin Laden was carrying 500 euros, which is about $745. Not sure that would have gotten him very far.
And he also had two phone numbers sewn into his clothing when he was killed. No doubt, those numbers have been called by now. In addition, there were about five cell phones and five guns including pistols and AK-47s.
Here with more about the location of the compound, Tom Foreman at the data wall in our D.C. bureau.
Tom, what can you show us?
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Eliot.
It's really interesting to look at these new images from Goi. Here's Africa down here. We move across the Arabian Sea up here toward our target area.
We made a big fuss about the notion that Islamabad is down here, only about 30 miles away from Abbottabad where this is found. The whole notion was it's very close. But the truth is we're finding out a lot more about how other people were even closer.
This is where the compound is over here. Over here is this Pakistani military academy where in 2008 our own troops were busy training Pakistanis to handle problems in the rest of their country with various terrorist cells groups who were opposing them there.
From this military academy over here to the compound is only about 750 yards. So we actually had troops on the ground within a few football fields of being where Osama bin Laden was believed to be at the time.
That's kind of surprising.
If we move in even closer, though, and there are some other things we're finding out. If we move in to this -- I want you to take a look at this area right here. These are roadblocks that have been identified by the Goi analysts as they've looked at these photographs.
We don't really know how long these have been here, whether or not this had anything to do with stopping people coming in to the compound up here, but obviously, that's one of the concerns.
But now here's the part I really want you to look at. Here's the compound up here that if I just (INAUDIBLE) it in you can see the latest image. And look right down here. That dark spot that appears right there, that is the downed helicopter that we've heard so much about.
We know that it was some type of Blackhawk helicopter. But there's been a lot of attention from intelligence sources that have looked at this. People around the world who pay attention to this. As they've looked at the wreckage, they've noticed some unusual things about this, Eliot.
And I want you to come in very close on this next picture. This picture, look at the tail rotor on this. You don't have to see a whole lot of helicopters to recognize that this looks somewhat different than what we've seen before. What that has intelligence folks around the world thinking, as our own Barbara Starr reported earlier from the Pentagon, is that maybe these were some type of stealth helicopters.
It was the same kind of technology that hides them from radar, because one of the big questions is, why do the Pakistanis not see these helicopters coming in to launch this raid? Nonetheless, that's one of the big questions that is being asked now as people sort through how they came in, hit this compound and got out the way they did.
In any event, Eliot, these new pictures from Goi and all the new information you reported a minute ago really helping day by day to paint a bigger, more complex picture of what actually went on inside this house.
SPITZER: Tom, fascinating stuff. Amazing footage and photos. But I've got to tell you -- at the beginning of your little talk to us here, when you said it was 750 yards on the map between the military school, the Pakistani military school, and the compound, that is unbelievable.
There's absolutely no way I would take any bet, any odds, that the intelligence service in Pakistan knew they was there. They had to, they must have, they're part of it, game over, this is not even a dispute.
FOREMAN: That --
SPITZER: If you look at this map, it's just incredible.
FOREMAN: Yes. And this area, I'll tell you this also, Eliot. The military people aren't here confined to this area. There's a lot of movement all throughout this area so that's why I think a lot of people were saying that. I mean for crying out loud, there's a golf course not far from here.
So the truth is you got a lot of people moving around here. That's one of the reasons people keep looking at it. Just the geography alone in saying you didn't know?
SPITZER: Yes. Absolutely.
FOREMAN: How is that possible?
SPITZER: All right. Tom, thank you. You know as I said the other day, you put up an 18-foot wall with barbed wire on top of it, immediately people are saying, what's on the other side? That is not how you guarantee anonymity.
All right, Tom.
FOREMAN: Exactly.
SPITZER: Thanks so much for that fascinating stuff.
FOREMAN: Good seeing you.
SPITZER: Americans are celebrating the killing of Osama bin Laden but what was the operation's legal authority under U.S. and international law? Attorney General Eric Holder thinks he had it. Here's what he told the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Let me make something very clear. The operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed was lawful. He was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September 11th. He admitted his involvement. As you indicate, he said he would not be taken alive. The operation against bin Laden was justified as an act of national self-defense.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: But does that settle the issue?
Joining me now are Walter Dellinger who was solicitor general under the Bill Clinton administration, represented the U.S. government before the Supreme Court. Walter is thought to be one of most brilliant constitutional lawyers out there.
Also, senior analyst David Gergen.
David, you've been there in the oval office as these sensitive decisions were being made.
Walter, let me begin with you. Assassination is illegal under U.S. law. So how do we justify going in with all these troops and killing Osama bin Laden?
WALTER E. DELLINGER, SOLICITOR GENERAL UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, first of all, assassination has been prohibited by a presidential executive order. A president can amend an executive order at anytime. But this is not an assassination because it's conducted as part of an operation, a military combat.
And the -- as a matter of U.S. law, the authorization for the use of military force, enacted after 9/11, which gives the president the authority to use force that he deems reasonable to go against those that were behind 9/11, clearly applies to bin Laden. So there's no question about its lawfulness under U.S. law.
Under international law, bin Laden is an enemy combatant. And one of the points of war is that you can kill enemy combatants. Now if they surrendered and cease being a combatant, then you have to take them into custody. But you have no obligation to make it easy for someone to surrender.
Even the more restrictive view of -- Eliot, that some European nations hold, that you have to take steps that will not compromise your mission, in order to take someone into custody rather than kill them when they're an enemy combatant, that standard is easily met here.
This is in the middle of the night. They meet armed resistance. It takes 20 minutes to make it to the third floor. They don't know if the Pakistani military is going to be closing in, is going to impede their departure. Every second counts. And it would compromise the mission to do anything other than use lethal force against bin Laden and get him out as quickly as possible.
SPITZER: All right.
DELLINGER: So even under restricted view, it's clearly lawful.
SPITZER: OK. Walter, I'll speak for the entire Supreme Court, you win that argument 9-0. You're -- so far, you're way ahead. Now I'm going to push you a little bit. How about the drone attacks? Does it get a little tougher? We're sending drones into Pakistan and there the targets are not nearly so well identified.
We're dealing with people much lower down, either in al Qaeda or the Taliban. Not so clear that they are in these senior positions. Is there any question there that we're pushing the U.S. prohibition on assassination?
DELLINGER: I don't think so. I -- you are entitled -- the assassination ban is about targeting governmental leaders for a political objective. We are going against a command and control structure in Pakistan and in Afghanistan of people who have made no hesitation to say that they are -- wanting to plot activities against the United States.
There's a policy judgment to be made about how much you want to risk the loss of life of civilians or noncombatants. How careful you ought to be. Those are operational policy decisions, not decisions about the lawfulness of the use of military force.
SPITZER: All right, I want to turn to David Gergen who's been right at the center of those operational decisions in the Oval Office with multiple presidents when these decisions are made.
First, does the president, when he's determining what the policy -- what to do here, do you consider the legality or do you just say we're going to get bin Laden, we'll worry about the legal mess thereafter, call the lawyers in once we're done?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Sure. And President Clinton, the first thing he would have said was, call Walter Dellinger, and ask him, because he's the guy who's going to know. You know that would have been the right answer.
Walter is -- you know, was a solicitor general, was a wonderful constitutional scholar. And Eliot, you're -- you know, you've been a heavyweight in the law as well. So I'm not going to argue that. But a president would normally do that, yes. But the president would also ask -- you know a moral question, is it right, in effect.
And I think that the answer comes to the same place. And that is, this is the man who declared war on the United States. He was a combatant. He said that he would never be taken alive. He gave indications that he would have explosives on him.
And in the middle of the night, under those circumstances, it seems to be morally justified, rooted in some sense of natural law, that you could take him out. And I really think -- I think it would be a pretty open and shut case. Just as we did with Admiral Yamamoto during the Second World War after he was the mastermind of the attack of Pearl Harbor.
SPITZER: Right. That historical analogy there that I think most people have forgotten.
I want to now push you a little bit, David, because -- move to Libya. I don't want to move across the geographic world too quickly but move to Libya where we bombed Libya and Gadhafi in 1986 I believe it was.
Then thereafter we moved to diplomatic recognition. We tried to bring him into the orbit of the world, of the league of nations, not literally the league, but those who abide by international law.
And now we're back to bombing his headquarters in Tripoli again, killing parts of his members of his family. Is this -- does this make sense to you, either operationally, morally or legally?
GERGEN: I think this is a lot more problematic. We went in with -- on the basis of the U.N. mandate, and that was all about defensive action. You can make, I think, an argument but it's a very strange argument that that would include trying to take out Gadhafi but it does seem to me -- that Gadhafi is in a -- is a very different case.
I'd be interested in hearing Walter's view.
SPITZER: Yes, you know --
GERGEN: Those are very different case.
SPITZER: Yes --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Excuse me, I'm sorry, David.
Walter, I'm leaving the toughest question for you. You justify the U.S. government's participation through NATO in the bombing of Gadhafi's family, arguably targeting Gadhafi himself.
Is that within the constraints of either the U.N. resolution or U.S. law as you understand it?
DELLINGER: Well, David is correct that Libya is a more problematic case. But if there is authority to use lethal force against Gadhafi's troops on the ground in order to protect civilians in Benghazi, then it clearly is within lawful authority to go after the command and control center in Gadhafi's compound.
Now, as a matter of policy, you want to minimize civilian damage and it's worth noting, as David does on the moral calculus about bin Laden, that the president chose the more difficult option. Instead of dropping a two-ton bomb which would have killed everybody in the compound -- men, women and children -- he chose a more difficult option, in part, to avoid the loss of unnecessary life. So we've had that moral calculus.
I think Libya is a more complicated case that if you can go after the troops, you can go after the commander.
SPITZER: Walter --
GERGEN: But if he were in a house -- Walter, if he were in a house somewhere and not in a command and control center, that would be a very difficult one to justify? If Gadhafi was in a house somewhere?
DELLINGER: Well, as a matter of policy but as long as he is the effective commander, and we have every reason to believe that he was. There certainly has been no retirement party, you know, for bin Laden by al Qaeda. So we have every reason to believe he's still in command and control. And no matter where he is, I think you can go after him. As a matter of policy and humaneness, you may want to minimize collateral damage, loss of life to civilians, and they did that in this case.
SPITZER: David, I want to end with you, a question that Walter raised quite properly. The fact the President Obama had a choice, he could have dropped a big bomb on bin Laden's house, instead, we went in, minimized the loss of life elsewhere.
One of the other reasons to go in as we did, a bomb would have destroyed everybody without any proof that bin Laden, in fact, was dead. Now the raging debate, should the president release photos to -- to eliminate any possible doubt that bin Laden is dead.
What do you think?
GERGEN: I think it's a very hard call. And the one thing we've learned about this president, he's extremely judicious. And he must have weighed this very carefully. And I trust his judgment at the end of the day. If he thought that this actually would be a threat to U.S. national security, that you would find riots around the world, it would make him more of a martyr. I would have -- I think he -- and it came down that way, I would support that.
You know, the other interesting part of this, Eliot, is it's true in Pakistan, there's some -- you know, people are protesting he's not dead and that sort of thing, even though, as they protest taking him out, but the truth is, most of the world thinks he's dead. And so I don't think the president had a great weight on his shoulders to make that case. And I think that -- and I think that led him to make the decision, OK, in this case why release this and get -- have people rally and the gruesome pictures and everything else.
SPITZER: All right. Walter Dellinger, David Gergen, thank you both for being here. Got to say (INAUDIBLE) about everything both of you said.
Up next, E.D. Hill talks to a man who pioneered the kind of special ops unit that took down bin Laden. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HILL: The team that took out Osama bin Laden is an elite military unit operating under the CIA. It was a clean, fast operation. No U.S. casualties. And this unique unit of high-end warriors stems directly from the original special operations unit called SEAL Team Six. The man who created that team joins us now.
Dick Marcinko, it is great to talk to you.
RICHARD MARCINKO, CREATED NAVY SEAL TEAM 6: Good to be here on a day like this.
HILL: They tasked you with creating this SEAL Team Six. I love the reason you chose six, not because there were six units but because you wanted people to think there were, enemies to think that. You got --
MARCINKO: Well, you know, we still playing the iron curtain world so I thought about those things.
HILL: You got to handpick the people in this unit. How did you do it? What did you look for? What do they look for now?
MARCINKO: Well, the initial and the most important thing to me at that time, which is, you know, early 1980, was combat experience. We were just getting rid of retirement of our Vietnam veterans. So what I first needed was those who had been in combat, those who had been shot at with a bullet going by their ear with their name on it, was about. The second thing that I looked at was trade skills because we were going to be counterterrorists. We're going to do hostage situations. So I wanted to have people that knew how to be electricians, knew how to do air conditioning so at a hostage situation I can infiltrate my people to repair something and could see the terrorists and do the count for me, what kind of weapons, what was their state of mind, how many hostages, how is it going versus counting on somebody that didn't know anything about the operations that were going to unfold as soon as I got the green light.
HILL: Now, I know that it has -- it's sort of moved on. I'm not sure how much you can tell us how that has changed. But from SEAL Team Six, I believe you then developed something that they call the red cell. And it is continued, sort of progressing and changing, adapting to the type of enemy and warfare we face. What's going on now? How do they create these teams now?
MARCINKO: Well, they still do it basically the same way. To go to the development group, which is a new name of the current name for SEAL Team Six. They still draw their men from the other SEAL teams. And what really helps out there is, you know, it's all-volunteer force. They have to go and volunteer for SEAL training or BUDs. Only 23 to 27 percent make it through BUDs. Then they operate in a normal team, two, three, four years and apply to go to group or SEAL Team Six as I knew it.
HILL: Yes.
MARCINKO: And they go through a green team which is a screening process. And they can have as high as a 50 percent loss or cut --
HILL: Drop out. Yes. MARCINKO: -- on the applicants there. So you really have the final filter factor. And frankly, you know, all the SEAL teams today, in fact, all special warfare in all the services, are over -- deployed and experienced -- SEAL then group right now is at the 13, 17 deployments between Iraq and Iran so you're talking about a mature fighter that's been around --
HILL: Yes.
MARCINKO: -- highly trained, and with the best equipment in the world.
HILL: They aren't operating under the military. They're operating under Title 50 which I understand is then the CIA or other government agencies. What's the difference? Why do they need to operate under, you know, whatever other government agency? And how does that change the rules of engagement or warfare?
MARCINKO: I think on the rules of engagement it doesn't really change it and that each specific mission, they write a set of rules of engagement. The advantage of doing it under Title 50 and being a mixed joint task force in the form of -- other than government, you don't have to worry about over flight rights. You don't worry about --
HILL: You're not official -- you're not as official so you get to --
MARCINKO: That's right. You are not representing a nation against nation. You're a warrior that's doing a job assigned to him. So we don't have -- it's a formality more than a practicality I think.
HILL: Thank you so much for being here.
MARCINKO: Thanks for having me in.
HILL: All right. Coming up, on the top 10 list of conspiracy theories, here's a new one. Bin Laden is still alive. We will bring in our favorite psychiatrist to take on this craziness next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: There's absolutely no doubt about it. I'm not talking about the death of bin Laden but the fact that some people are never going to believe it. With no body, no picture and no grave site, conspiracy theories are on the rise around the world. But why? And who are the people so prone to believing there's a plot behind this story? That's what I want to ask my guest, Dr. Gail Saltz. She's a psychologist, author, all-around rational person.
Gail, thanks for coming in.
DR. GAIL SALTZ, PSYCHIATRY PROF., NY PRESBYTERIAN HOSP.: It's a pleasure.
SPITZER: So, look, are there two groups of doubters? The rational doubters who say show us more evidence and the irrational doubters who no matter what you show them will always see conspiracy?
SALTZ: I would say given the fact that right now, if bin Laden were alive and showed himself, nothing would be more humiliating to the United States. There's not a logical reason to doubt. So therefore, I think we're talking about people who either have a streak of great paranoia, who are always going to think there's some sort of conspiracy, some suspicion, and people who are doubters by human nature. In other words, obsessional kind of people who need 100 percent proof, which, by the way, a picture or video would not be.
SPITZER: Would not be. Right. A picture 100 years ago when --
SALTZ: Exactly.
SPITZER: -- technology was new perhaps but not today.
SALTZ: But today, of course, it wouldn't --
SPITZER: We all know photo shop and everything else.
SALTZ: It would absolutely not suffice. And I think that the reason is that the doubting is a defense mechanism. It is a way to say many things. Some of the things are these people are not like me. Therefore, I don't identify with them.
SPITZER: These people being --
SALTZ: Well, it could be, we don't think Obama's correct because he's not like me. So that might be an American. It might be people in Pakistan saying those Americans are not like me so I don't think they can be correct. I don't identify with them. And therefore, I don't believe it.
SPITZER: So this is -- the fascinating notion, the defense mechanism that lets folks in Pakistan more sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, to Al Qaeda, don't want to admit that their ideology has just taken this hit. Somehow they will pretend it's not a reality?
SALTZ: Correct, and I think that there's an implication, which may be or may be not real, that they let us down or they failed their job by having him be in their midst and that we, therefore, came in and did the job better. And that's a very unacceptable and distressing thought.
SPITZER: Right.
SALTZ: So you have to defend against that as well.
SPITZER: Well, you make a subtle distinction. Those who were supposed -- perhaps the Pakistan intelligence agencies that were supposed to have discovered him, they clearly failed. Well, my view is they're complicit.
SALTZ: Yes, but the Pakistani people, they own that right. That's their intelligence, their government, their military was down the road. SPITZER: Right.
SALTZ: So there's a feeling of -- I mean, would we feel that way as well. Oh, we're Americans, we didn't make the cut but you came in and invaded and took him?
SPITZER: Now, is there any rational demonstration of evidence that could persuade the crazies? Are they simply beyond the pale? They believe that the UFOs come down every night? They think we never really went to the moon?
SALTZ: I think there's a big difference between UFOs are coming down at night and doubting something that has bigger kernels of potential truth. A man that's been hiding for 10 years, why did it take us so long? Why could he been in the rest (ph). I don't think this is as far out as, boy, you're really crazy. However, I do think, you know, paranoia always comes out of seeds and kernels of truth. There's always a kernel of truth to the paranoia.
SPITZER: Is that the old cartoon just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
SALTZ: There we go.
SPITZER: Which is one of the great cartoons, and so what you're saying is that kernel justifies for them their rational world?
SALTZ: Right, absolutely. And you can see that in people who have really elaborate paranoid fantasies or people who -- some people are going to look and say, this isn't so elaborate, right? Other people have said, oh, we got him, oh, he must be dead by now. I mean, how could it take us so long? All these things add to that feeling of it's rational that there's conspiracy. But I am saying that I think the doubters and they're really a minority, if we think about it, nothing will prove to them, nothing is going to prove to them this is true.
SPITZER: I take it from all of this that you agree with the president, releasing the photos would have been a vain act in terms of being persuasive, in terms of argument? Could have had downside risks in terms of acts of violence, retribution, therefore not releasing was the wiser approach?
SALTZ: Absolutely. I don't think that any of these photos would have made a hell of beans difference to convincing those people. I do believe that it could absolutely ignite people. And let me also say for the next generation, for the children of our country, I think it would have created tremendous -- we're not thinking about the greater victims here, the people who are really suffering and are going to be made anxious. I think this would only increase that.
SPITZER: Real quick, I want to switch gears very quick.
We now have a treasure trove of information about Al Qaeda. All the stuff we took out of that compound. Those who are still members of Al Qaeda, do they now live in absolute fear? Does that paranoia for them force them to act differently?
SALTZ: Well, once there's a reality --
SPITZER: Right.
SALTZ: -- absolutely. On the other hand, let me say that a lot of people knew they were being hunted anyway and there's a denial of that. A feeling of no matter what, I, the mortal --
SPITZER: Right.
SALTZ: -- I will be able to overcome that. That's how they keep functioning. So it depends on that individual psyche. How much the fear breakthrough because of the reality that we did catch one, or how much he really goes into denial mode again and says, you know what, I'm smarter than that, I'm better than that, I'm going to win.
SPITZER: OK. Fascinating stuff, Gail Saltz. Thank you so much for being here.
Coming up, if someone moves into your neighborhood, builds giant privacy walls and never comes out, aren't you curious? Not if you live in Abbottabad. We'll try to peek over the wall, coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Here's a question that's been bugging me. Didn't Osama have any neighbors? Didn't they know who he was? That's basically what I asked Imran Khan. Imran is a national hero in Pakistan for his stardom on the cricket field and now he's a prominent politician who lives near Osama's old neighborhood.
SPITZER: Mr. Khan, thanks so much for joining us.
IMRAN KHAN, CRITICAL OF U.S. POLICY IN PAKISTAN (via telephone): Sure.
SPITZER: Does it strike you as absolutely impossible, given the size of this house, given the cost of this house and the walls surrounding it, isn't it almost impossible that people didn't have curiosity about who lived there?
KHAN: You know, in the cities, anyone could live anywhere.
SPITZER: Wow.
KHAN: I mean, probably if he was hiding very well, like he was moving place to place, God alone knows. Frankly, I have no idea.
SPITZER: Let me interrupt you for a minute. Where I come from and we're a nation of 300 million people, a lot of big cities. Somebody builds a house that big, puts up a wall that big, everybody knows who's behind it. People gossip. They're curious. You can't keep secrets. I don't care who you are or how much money you have. It is absolutely impossible for me to believe that everybody in that town didn't know who was there. KHAN: I'm afraid this is not true. I mean, in Pakistan, there are populations -- we have the highest population growth rate. The one thing that is happening is new areas coming up, buildings, drawings (ph). Where I live in -- outside Islamabad, every day, there are new houses coming up. God only knows who lives in which houses. I don't know who lives in the neighboring houses. They're all coming up.
SPITZER: All right. Mr. Khan, it is always a pleasure to chat with you. Thank you so much.
KHAN: Thank you.
SPITZER: All right. Maybe everybody didn't know, but it certainly is impossible to me that their security and intelligence agencies didn't know. The whole thing is crazy.
Anyway, coming up, America's use of torture. The release of the photo of bin Laden's corpse, uproar around the world, but also arguments backstage in the Obama administration. When we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Two hot button issues have been dominating the political chatter in Washington all day. And in fact, also this TV show tonight. They are. Should the president have released those photos of bin Laden? And did torture enhanced interrogation they call it to be polite, lead to the discovery of bin Laden?
We go now to Gloria Borger, the most connected political reporter in Washington, who's been checking all her sources behind the big walls of the White House.
Gloria, thanks for joining us tonight.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Thank you.
SPITZER: So what did you hear? Let's start with the photos.
BORGER: Yes.
SPITZER: And it seems as though, here's one where the White House wasn't speaking with one voice. A little odd for this White House.
BORGER: It's kind of interesting. According to my sources inside the administration, there was always a sense that the president himself was really leaning towards not releasing these photographs. And the most interesting piece of information I got was that this was always going to be a decision that he made in concert with his national security team; in particular, his secretary of defense and his secretary of state. And as a Republican said to me who served in a previous administration, he said, you know what, when your secretary of defense says to you, do not release these photographs because it could put our men and women at risk, it's the right decision not to release the photographs. And a senior administration official told me last night, he said, look, there's no doubt Osama bin Laden is dead. We've got the DNA. He said we've got the facials, we've got the wife's identification, we've got his measurements. So if this is for some shock value, why would we do it? The doubters are never going to believe it one way or another.
SPITZER: But, Gloria, here's what's fascinating. You are right. For secretary of defense, the Trump argument, the one that is going to supersede all others --
BORGER: Absolutely.
SPITZER: -- is it's going to put our men and women in the field at risk.
BORGER: That's right.
SPITZER: Very hard ever to say no when that argument is made. But here's the curious thing. The person would was disagreeing with that --
BORGER: Right.
SPITZER: -- the current head of the CIA who's about to become the secretary of defense, seems to kind of get out there and say, yes, of course, it's going to get -- become public, why not just do it now? That seems a little dissident to me.
BORGER: Right. And I think the key word in listening very carefully in the course in all these situations, as you know, Eliot, you have to parse words here, that is, it's ultimately going to be released, right? So I don't think this precludes the possibility that somewhere down the road as part of the historical record, that this picture or pictures is indeed going to be released. But at this particular moment, I think the sense inside the White House was that it would inflame an already inflamed situation, and there really isn't any need to do it now because they've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Osama bin Laden is, in fact, dead.
SPITZER: Gloria, let's switch topics for a moment.
BORGER: OK.
SPITZER: It seems as though two different narratives of the history are being written. One to justify the use and rationalize the use of waterboarding, enhanced interrogation.
BORGER: Right.
SPITZER: Saying we wouldn't have found him if we hadn't done that. The other line of argument, the history being written, is come on, guys, that had nothing to do with our finding out where he was. Which of these is a better history? Which is more persuasive to you?
BORGER: Well, the more persuasive argument -- first of all, I think -- let me state that it's ultimately something we cannot prove because we don't have access to all the documents. So we don't know exactly who was tortured when.
Here is what I know from my sources who are very familiar with this operation. What I know is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was waterboarded 183 times, when asked about the important courier who led, ultimately led the CIA to Osama bin Laden, when asked about this courier, he lied. KSM absolutely lied. And the reason -- the lie was alerting to the CIA because they knew from other detainees would had not been waterboarded that, in fact, this courier was a protege of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda operatives.
SPITZER: Right.
BORGER: So it was the lie that led to them, but he didn't tell them the truth. So what does that prove to you about the waterboarding?
SPITZER: You know what, Gloria, I can guarantee you both sides are going to have a good or reasonable argument to justify their view of the history.
Anyway, Gloria Borger --
BORGER: They will.
SPITZER: -- thanks so much for being here.
BORGER: Sure.
SPITZER: And thank you for watching tonight. Good night from New York.
"PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
