Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Jon Stewart Leaving This Year; Obama Asks Congress For War Powers; Powers Wouldn't Allow Long-Term Ground War; Prohibitions On Mandate Deeply Concerning To McCain; U.S. Closes Embassy In Yemen; U.S. Closes Embassy In Yemen; Obama Remarks Live This Afternoon; Yemeni Rebels Seize Weapons From U.S. Marines; Failed Attempts To Rescue Kayla Mueller; Yemen Rebels May Enter Empty U.S. Embassy Soon; Yemeni Rebels Seize Cars; U.S. Closes Embassy; Muslim Students Killed

Aired February 11, 2015 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 6:00 p.m. in London, 8:00 p.m. in Cairo, 9:00 p.m. in Minsk. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

If left unchecked, ISIL will pose a threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States homeland. Those are the exact words of President Obama sent in a letter to the United States Congress today along with a formal request to grant him sweeping war powers to fight ISIS.

And in just a few hours, the president will speak to the American public, indeed to the world, about his proposal which limits operations to three years. It allows limited use of ground troops and does not restrict a battlefield to only Iraq and Syria.

For more on all of this, let's bring in our White House Correspondent Michelle Kosinski and our Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash. Michelle, this authorization, this language that the president submitted, he's seeking requests, powers to fight ISIS terrorists without an enduring offensive combat role. Those are his words. So, what exactly is he seeking?

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, that's open to interpretation, to some point, isn't it? I mean, that's the language that was put in there. That's really the biggest limitation included in this request for the authorization of use of military force. Those words, enduring offensive ground combat operations. That's really the only thing listed that is not authorized. The word, enduring, is what is somewhat vague. And the president spelled it out in plainer language in the letter that he included with this AUMF saying that it would not authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations, similar to what had been done in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, you would think that could leave the window open, then, to shorter-term, smaller-scale combat operations, isn't that right?

In the briefing that's going on right now, the press secretary said, yes, that language is intentionally somewhat vague because the president wants to preserve the ability to act militarily, if necessary. However, when pressed on, well, what would that be? What about, say, a large-scale troop deployment in a defensive capacity? Whatever you can imagine along those lines. And the press secretary said, well, that's not really within the president's plan. That's not really what he envisions this as.

But because, if this is approved, this would last beyond President Obama's term, then that window still exists there for the next president. But you see the balance -- the checks and balances here. It has a three-year limit. But there are still some windows open, for example, geographically. It doesn't set any limits there. And it also includes the possibility of going after groups aligned with ISIS -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, it doesn't limit -- it does have a big loophole in one of the lines that the president used, Michelle, and you saw this in his letter to the United States Congress. It -- he says, it would also authorize the use of U.S. forces in situations where ground combat operations are not expected or intended. In other words, if something were to develop, he would have the authority to launch combat ground troops into that region, if something unintended -- not expected or intended were to incur. That's a huge, huge loophole.

So, what's the reaction, Dana, up on Capitol Hill so far?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, members of Congress wanted a debate and they're going to get one big time. It is not any way, shape or form for certain how this is going to end because there are very different opinions here. And it really -- it's sort of bizarre the way they're shaping up. Republicans want to give the Democratic president more latitude, as commander in chief. Democrats want to shrink that latitude and want to narrow this to make sure that things don't get out of control.

Let's start with Republicans. Listen to what John McCain told us in the hallway earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: If the Congress of the United States wants to prevent the commander in chief from acting, you can cut off funds. We've done that in the past. But to place prohibitions on the commander in chief, then you have 535 commanders in chief and that's deeply concerning to me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Now, the flip side of that is the president's fellow Democrats who are saying that they are very concerned that the lesson of 2002 and the last time Congress approved the war in Iraq, it got out of control. And they think that the way that this is written is better but still not perfect.

Listen to Democrat Chris Murphy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BASH (on camera): What you have to vote on isn't tighter when it comes to authority for troops. Will you vote for it?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: It's going to be hard for me to vote for anything that allows for us to repeat the mistakes of the past. And I worry that the language that exists today is going to allow, not for this president but for the next president, to put major combat troops back into the Middle East. That is likely something that I'm going to have a very hard time supporting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH (live): And, Wolf, he's talking about the next president because the length of this is three years which is, of course, after President Obama is gone from office.

Will this actually pass? Will something pass? I spoke to Senator Bob Corker who's the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's going to be taking this up at the helm of the debate in that committee first. He told me in the hallway, he said, if we can't find bipartisanship on facing ISIS, I don't know what we can do. He's confident he can but it's going to take a while and a lot of creative ways to try to bridge those two very, very different points of view.

BLITZER: All right. The debate is only just beginning on this sensitive issue. War powers. It doesn't get more important than that. Michelle and Dana, guys, thanks very much.

Let's dig deeper right now. Joining us from Capitol Hill, Texas Republican Congressman Mac Thornberry. He's the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for joining us. You've had a chance to read the president's letter that was sent to Congress. You've had a chance to read his proposed legislation, the war powers legislation, giving him the authority to go after ISIS in this war-type situation. Do you support what the president wants?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY (R), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, I'm concerned that the president is more focused on threading a political needle here rather than how to be successful in beating ISIS.

So, for example, you were just hearing these words, offensive ground combat operations, enduring. There is no precedent for any of those words. So, if you're a soldier or a Marine on the ground in Iraq or somewhere, what do they mean for you? And one of our key questions, I think, is how that translates to those soldiers and Marines on the ground who actually have to live with this language. Not just the political aspect of it but they've got to make life or death decisions based on whether it's enduring or not, whether it's offensive or not. That troubles me.

BLITZER: So, basically, the language that the president submitted today, you could not vote in favor of that. Is that what you're saying?

THORNBERRY: Well, I've got real concerns about it. We really are going to investigate deeply about what this means and especially how it affects troops in the field. What I would feel better about is if the president really shows the commitment to win rather than just trying to, again, thread a political needle.

Remember, the president has always said he has the authority to do this anyway. So, now, the language he sent up to us today restricts the authority that he said he's already had and has been using for months and months. Not all of that fits together to me.

BLITZER: What do you think of the request for three years' authorization to use force in this war against ISIS? Because the language he uses specifically says it would be for three years.

THORNBERRY: Yes. I think it's OK to have either a sunset or a requirement that we revisit this to see if it keeps up with changing times. We did not revisit the 2001 AUMF and so the courts and the administrations have stretched that language out of all meaning. So, I think a requirement to look at this or a sunset makes sense. What I have much more problems with are these restrictions that are going to apply to our troops that they've got to live out.

BLITZER: Well, it's going to be a sensitive debate and I'm sure you're going to have hearings on this. Your colleagues in the Senate will have hearings. We'll see what kind of changes are made. If the president is ready to accept those changes, we'll cover it, obviously.

I want to get your quick reaction to the United States abandoning its U.S. -- the U.S. embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, those Marines. All of the Marines now have been effectively forced to leave. And we're now getting reports they couldn't leave with their weapons. They had to hand over their weapons and their military vehicles to these rebels, if you will, these Houthi rebels, these Shiite rebels backed by Iran. It's pretty humiliating what's going on in Yemen right now, isn't it?

THORNBERRY: Yes. Two things come to mind. Number one, the most serious threats against our homeland in recent years have emanated from Al Qaeda in Yemen. And now, that essential presence that we've had there to try to reduce that threat is -- has been eliminated in the capital, at least, of Sanaa.

Secondly, this is what the president has touted as the poster child for his successful counterterrorism efforts. And that's part of the reason, when we go to this AUMF, a lot of folks on our side of the aisle have doubts about whether his heart is really in it or not because his success story really hasn't turned out very well.

BLITZER: Mac Thornberry is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Chairman, thanks for joining us.

THORNBERRY: Thanks for having me, Wolf.

BLITZER: And this note to our viewers, at 3:30 p.m. Eastern later today, the President is set to make a major statement on his request to Congress to authorize the use of military force against ISIS. This is the first war powers authorization that the American president has sought since 2002. That war powers' resolution was approved and, of course, led to the war to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq. CNN will have live coverage, 3:30 p.m. Eastern. That's coming up. Also coming up this hour, as we just mentioned, while American

personnel and Marines evacuate the U.S. embassy in Yemen, rebels there have seized their vehicles, their ammunition, their weapons. We're going to discuss what's going on.

Plus, we're getting new details on a series of failed attempts to save Kayla Mueller's life, the American kidnapped by ISIS in Syria. One rescue attempt even included a man claiming to be her husband.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The chaotic security situation in Yemen has just take a very troubling turn. A senior U.S. official there says Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen are expected to enter the empty United States embassy in the capital of Sanaa within the next 24 hours. An official at the Sanaa Airport says rebels have actually taken U.S. embassy cars that have been left at the airport. All this comes just hours after the U.S. embassy suspended operations, ordered all staff, diplomatic and military, all personnel out of the country ASAP.

Our chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto is joining us with more on this very disturbing development.

What is the very latest? What are you hearing, Jim?

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is what I'm hearing. Listen, this was a necessary departure because of the declining security situation on the ground. But it was an orderly departure. For instance, the embassy personnel, including U.S. Marines, they flew out commercially. They were able to take the time to destroy sensitive things inside that U.S. embassy in Sanaa, critical documents, computer files and also weapons they left behind.

In fact, I'm told that when they got to the airport, they gave their weapons, their side arms, their smaller weapons to a Yemeni security detail that had escorted them to the airport. Before they did that, they disabled them. And the principle reason they did it is because they were getting on a commercial flight. So there was some order to it, Wolf.

But, listen, they wouldn't have taken out U.S. embassy personnel and much of the military personnel unless they thought the situation on the ground was just too dangerous for them to remain there.

BLITZER: This is just the latest U.S. embassy to be forced to shut down. It comes on the heels of other critically important embassies that are no longer in business.

SCIUTTO: That's right. I mean this is a really important point. So look at this now. There is no U.S. embassy in Yemen right now, already none in Syria because of the war there for a number of years, withdrawal post-Benghazi from Libya and also no presence for a number of years in Somalia. These are all failed states. They're all states that have a serious terror problem, AQAP in Yemen, al Shabaab in Somalia, of course ISIS in Syria and al Nusra Group, al Qaeda tied, as well as other Islamist groups, including ISIS in Libya now. You don't have a diplomatic presence there. You will have military operations still underway.

But keep in mind, an embassy is more than about issuing visas as we know. These are key political contacts. They go to military cooperation. They are listening posts, frankly, for intelligence services. So to not have those listening posts on the ground, that's a major loss in light of how key these countries are to U.S. national security.

BLITZER: And we remember the effort, Jim, that the U.S. and coalition partners did in trying to get Gadhafi out of Libya. But now the U.S. is out of that embassy. And we have some video. It's so disturbing every time we see it. This is video, it's the pool, the swimming pool at the U.S. embassy resident there, in the ambassador's residence in Tripoli. And you see these rebels there, they're enjoying the United States embassy. They're swimming in the pool.

SCIUTTO: Yes, no question. And this goes to a debate, it followed Benghazi -- as he does his swan dive there, certainly embarrassing images -- you know, risk management versus risk elimination. You can't eliminate the risk really in any embassy around the world. Of course there are greater risks here. There are concerns among diplomats and former diplomats that when you pull out of these places, that the fear is so great post-Benghazi of having a repetition of that that you're erring on the side of leaving rather than staying. I mean it's a difficult decision to make. You don't want to be the one who stays and then you lose someone as you did, for instance, in Benghazi. On the other hand, when you do pull out, there's a real loss there. And the Pentagon has acknowledged that, that the -- while CT operations, counterterror operations will continue in Yemen, the Pentagon has acknowledged there will be an impact on those counterterror operations.

BLITZER: Yes. A lot of us also remember in 1979, with the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran was shut down. It's still shut down to this very, very day. All right, Jim, thanks very much. So quite a turn of events in Yemen.

Let's bring in our CNN military analyst, retired Lieutenant General Mark Hertling.

General, you've been involved in the evacuation process at U.S. embassies overseas. There's a lot of sensitive material at those embassies. Walk us through what the U.S. embassy staff in Yemen, for example, had to do to shut down that embassy and get out of there.

LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, anytime, Wolf, you're talking about an embassy on - on -- in another country, you're talking about sovereign ground of the United States. So everything within that compound belongs to the U.S. and most modern nations understand that.

But when you are looking at potentially evacuating an embassy, it is a phased approach. You first allow nonessential people to leave, which we saw starting to occur in Yemen about two weeks ago. Then you start reducing services because, as Jim just said, there are everything from visa allocations, to businessmen who were working with the embassy, to resources, to Treasury Department, to the military, to, in the case of Yemen, links to intelligence agencies.

But when you get down to the final decision-making, a lot of things have to be done. You have to burn documents. So most embassies have incinerators or burn bags within the embassy compound. You have to destroy hard drives. You know you're going to leave some equipment within the embassy compound, and that's probably what's been happening, because you know that it's going to turn from sovereign U.S. ground, as you saw in the pictures of Libya, to being taken over by the local citizens when the people depart.

In the case of Yemen, as what's occurred in the last 24 hours, it has been a phased relief operation. And the very fact that the remaining personnel used the Sanaa Airport as opposed to the helipad, which is right outside the gate, which have been used - which would have been used in case of a forced embassy evacuation, tells me that things were tense but calm. And that's an important consideration. The decision was made, we can no longer be viable, let's leave.

BLITZER: General, I'm going to have you stand by. We have more to discuss coming up later this hour. So, stand by, General Mark Hertling.

Coming up next, a horrific, horrific story. A horrible story. Three young Muslim students in the United States gunned down in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Why police say the suspect's FaceBook page may reveal his real motives. Stand by. We'll have details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're also following a truly shocking story out of North Carolina. Three Muslim students are dead. They're dead after being shot in an apartment near the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill at the campus there. The victims, 23-year-old Deah Shaddy Barakat, 21-year-old Yusor Mohammad, who were married back in December, and Mohammad's sister, 19-year-old Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha. All three were shot in the head. The man accused of the horrible shooting, 46-year-old Craig Stephen Hicks appeared in court today after turning himself in to police last night.

Our senior Washington correspondent Joe Johns is with us, as well as our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

And, Joe, this is really, really horrific, this story. It's hard to believe that this could happen in the United States. But tell our viewers what the police are saying, what we know.

JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the latest information, Wolf, is that we have been able to hear some of the 911 calls that came in around 5:00 last night in the Chapel Hill area. Two callers, they tell essentially the same story. One caller says she heard about eight shots. Another caller says between five and 10 shots. A series of screams and then silence. The police arrive and they discover these three people dead.

The suspect in this case has turned himself in, in fact. Craig Hicks. And he's 46 years old. He is cooperating with the police. And they're trying to determine exactly what it was. They were told initially that this was a dispute over a parking space. However, the police said in a statement that came out just a little while ago that they are aware of the community's concerns about the possibility of this being a hate crime and they intend to investigate that angle to the fullest.

So all of the answers are not in yet. Police haven't finished their investigation. The suspect is charged with three cases of first-degree murder and we're expecting to know more. He did appear in a court today.

BLITZER: And basically what the allegation is, is that the suspect took a weapon, a handgun in this particular case, and executed -- effectively executed these three young students, shot them in the head, is that right?

JOHNS: Right, all three apparently were shot in the head. Deah Barakat, and a husband and wife, Yusor, Razan Mohammed Abu-Salha. The victims were very young. They're between the ages of 19 and 23 years old, all in the dentistry field there. So it's a very sad story for Chapel Hill right now.

BLITZER: It's a horrific story. And, Jeffrey, you know, the suspicion is - and, of course, it's valid given the fact that apparently on this suspect's FaceBook page, social media, there's a history of awful things that are said about Muslims, for example. So it raises the question that the federal government could get involved and charge this as a hate crime. What does that mean?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the state has a hate crime statute as well. Murder is illegal under all circumstances, obviously. Intentionally killing another person is, of course, the crime of homicide. But states and the federal government, in recent years, have said, when crimes are motivated by hate, racial hatred, religious hatred, those crimes can be enhanced, the penalties can be enhanced, and the federal government can step in. Obviously, in this circumstance, it's well worth investigating whether this is a hate crime, as well as what you might call an ordinary murder.

BLITZER: If he's charged with capital murder, for example, in North Carolina, that's one thing. But if he's also charged with a hate crime, what would that add?

TOOBIN: Well, it certainly puts the death penalty on the table. Even in North Carolina, when you have a death penalty case, there are factors that the jury is supposed to consider in determining whether to impose the death penalty. If, in fact, a crime is racially, religiously motivated, that can be one of these enhancements that would make someone more likely to be executed. But those are all to be determined as the investigation unfolds.

BLITZER: Yes, and nobody really believes that because of a parking dispute -

TOOBIN: Right.

BLITZER: You go ahead and execute three young students at the University of North Carolina.

JOHNS: Right. It's a very shocking crime. It's also important to say that this individual appears to be - appears to be an outspoken atheist. You know, FaceBook postings are very difficult to authenticate, especially where the individual who allegedly posted them is locked up behind bars with the police. Nonetheless, he was outspoken and critical of religion, including Christianity, as well as Islam. So that should factor into it a bit.

BLITZER: Yes, and the police chief there, Chief Chris Blue (ph), of the Chapel Hill Police Department, he said in a statement, our investigators are exploring what could have motivated Mr. Hicks to commit such a senseless and tragic act. We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate motivated and we will exhaust every lead to determine if this is the case. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of these young people who lost their lives so needlessly and our thoughts and prayers are with the families as well. Our deepest, deepest condolences to them. We're going to have a lot more on this story coming up today in "The Situation Room" as well.

Just ahead, so what does the United States - what has the United States done to try to rescue an American aid worker taken hostage by ISIS in Syria? We have new details on the failed effort to save Kayla Mueller and new information about her time in captivity.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)