Return to Transcripts main page
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Police Admit Errors in Freddie Gray Casee; Tulsa District Attorney Concerned about Allegations of Police Misconduct; Drone Strikes Causes Questions as Hostages Die in the Attack; Interview with Christine Abbott, Victim of Police Rough Ride; Anthony Bourdain on food in South Korea. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired April 25, 2015 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[20:00:16] ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Thanks for joining us tonight.
Breaking news out of Baltimore as well as two potentially damaging admissions from police in the death of Freddie Gray. The breaking news that police tweeting this photo just a bit of though asking for help identifying and locating the man at the center of the street there. This, they say, is the exact moment of the arrest. They say the man is photographing it. They want him to come forward to help them, in their own words today, bring their own picture of what happened into sharper focus.
Now earlier today, top police officials spoke to reporters admitting that Freddie Gray who may have already sustained serious spinal injuries is handcuffed and manacled but never seat belted in to the back of the police van, nor did he get medical attention when he asked for and may well have needed it right there when he was first detained.
These admissions are significant in many ways. On the other hand, they might now come as a surprise to the protesters who are taking to the streets all week and are promising to shut down the city down tomorrow. And there have been instances of detainees sustaining serious and sometimes fatal injuries in the back of the police vans. The city has put out millions in judgments and settlements of cases over the years. The question this time, though, was it negligence or police misconduct?
A lot to talk about tonight, first Miguel Marquez joins us from Baltimore with the day's developments -- Miguel.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Anderson. That picture that you talk about at the top of the show was taken right here on Press Bury Street. The camera that it was taken from right on the edge of that building there. There are dozens of cameras in this neighborhood and 600 across the city.
The person taking that video, with a cell phone, was from right here. The arrest of Freddie Gray was right in this area here next to this railing. He was then dragged about 20 feet up there. Lots of information in this press conference today, but it is likely not to satisfy the concerns of this neighborhood.
MARQUEZ (voice-over): In the strongest language yet, the Baltimore police talking about possible charges against the officers for the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray.
ANTHONY BATTS, BALTIMORE POLICE COMMISSIONER: If someone harmed Freddie Gray we are going to have to prosecute them. And so giving too much information out to you on the front here now may jeopardize that prosecution.
MARQUEZ: Witnesses say Gray told police he couldn't breathe and asked for an inhaler upon arrest. Police today already admitting mistakes were made.
BATTS: We know he was not buckled in the transportation wagon, as he should have been, no excuses for that period. We know our police employees failed to get him attention in a timely manner multiple times.
MARQUEZ: Police say Gray could speak and move when arrested at (INAUDIBLE) streets, a block later. When Gray was pulled from the transport vehicle, his legs shackled and witnesses told CNN Gray was unconscious at the time. Today police say, not true.
BATTS: They were able to put the leg shackles on him. He was able to move. He was able to talk at that point in time.
MARQUEZ: At third stop, several blocks away, police say Gray asked for a medic. That request denied. Police didn't say why Gray asked for medical help. Gray was then driven to another location to pick up another prisoner before finally being taken to western district station.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Gray was placed in an ambulance and he was transported to shock trauma where he died a week later.
MARQUEZ: Five of the officers involved have given statements, a sixth has refused to cooperate citing his Fifth Amendment rights. This neighborhood is expecting charges.
If they are not charged, what is going to happen in this neighborhood?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think right now, my fear and I have been receiving e-mails from different people that have been peacefully protesting with us and their fear is that it will get crazy between the petitioners and the protesters and the police.
COOPER: Miguel, this is the first time the police have come close to admitting wrongdoing.
MARQUEZ: It is the very first time they've come close to that. And it was surprising to hear that they are being that upfront, that charges may come. One police officer obviously has pled the fifth, so that is causing concern that he has obviously something to worry about, Anderson.
COOPER: All right, Miguel Marquez, thanks very much for that.
Joining us now is retired NYPD detective Harry Houck, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Sunny Hostin and forensic scientist Lawrence Kobilinsky of the John Jay College of criminal justice.
Sunny, to hear the chief of police essentially admitting wrongdoing on the seat belt buckling and saying medical attention should have been done earlier, how significant?
SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think that is very significant. It is the strongest statement we've heard from the Baltimore police chief. And I think, really, the only question now is will the liability be criminal or civil or perhaps both? Because when you say, well they were negligent by not buckling him, they were negligent by not providing medical care, that sounds very civil to me.
But then he couples those statements with saying, there could be possible charges, charges that are criminal in nature. And certainly if any of these actions, let's say the rough ride happened and that was intentional, that could be second-degree murder, that could be manslaughter by vehicle. And so, I think this is a pretty significant development in this case.
[20:05:28] COOPER: Harry, there were cc TV cameras all over the place and police were saying they were actually able to track the vehicle. So if there was, you know, there are now allegations of rough rides in the past, of police intentionally driving aggressively to throw around somebody in the back of a police wagon who has their hands handcuffed behind their back, if they were driving like that, theoretically, and we don't have evident of that yet, that should be on cameras.
HARRY HOUCK, FORMER NEW YORK POLICE DETECTIVE: Yes. The Baltimore said tonight they have 600 cameras in the city, so I'm tend to think that maybe they could track that vehicle from the place he was first put into, all the way to the end of this. So if they can track all of that information down, they can see the way the vehicle is driving, watching that video, and be able to find out if a rough ride really occurred.
COOPER: You know, one of the things Miguel Marquez said and I think - I just want to kind of fill in what he said, one officer has chosen not to say anything yet. That is his constitutional right.
COOPER: And I think it is inappropriate to read too much into that. I mean somebody -- do you think somebody is allowed -- you can read into it easily and say he has something to hide and he doesn't want to do something that implicates himself. That being said, this is one of the rights that all of us have in this country.
HOSTIN: Absolutely, Anderson. You have the right to remain silent, right, especially if you are facing criminal exposure. But it does seem odd to me that you are acting in the course of your police duty, generally an incident report is filled out when you are a police officer, and you have five out of six giving statements and who have cooperated.
HOUCK: That is key.
HOSTIN: So that I think is significant.
HOUCK: I think we can agree on something.
COOPER: You think it is significant, Harry, that five of the six have given statements.
HOUCK: Yes. I'm looking at it now as not another cop, I'm looking at it as a detective investigator, when I have five police officers that come forward and I have one that doesn't come forward.
COOPER: That's significant to you?
HOUCK: That is significant to me. And of course it is his right. I mean, we know that. But five officers thought that they come forward and probably think, listen, we didn't do anything wrong here, alright. So, you know, we're going to come forward and tell the truth and on what happened. And you got one officer -- that is a little telling, but I don't know. We'll have to see what happened.
COOPER: Professor Kobilinsky, I mean, once this autopsy by the family is complete, do you think there will be clearer answers or is it likely to still be inconclusive knowing exactly how the injuries? There is a., you can know what the injuries are but how they occurred or what order they occurred, that maybe --
LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, FORENSIC SCIENTIST: That is going to be problematic. I don't think the autopsy will reveal this. I think that we have to remember most of the time second or even third autopsies which are unusual but it happened in the Brown case in Ferguson. But it is quite possible that a second autopsy might reveal something the first autopsy did not.
I think what really troubles me a lot is this is not the first time this has happened. We have that case back in 2005 --
COOPER: Right, another person in a vehicle.
KOBILINSKY: Sure. He was put in the back of the van without any kind of restraints, no seat belt, and he too, ended up with a severed spinal cord. And remember, whiplash, whiplash. So in a sense, even if he had a seat belt on, he could still have sustained whiplash injury, serious injury if his neck was not immobilized. I don't think they realized he had the neck damage. So there are a lot of questions that we still are not going to have answered, even with two autopsies.
HOSTIN: And I think it is important to note that if this rough ride occurred, and if the injuries are related directly to the rough ride, that does not alleviate the exposure to these officers. There could still be criminal liability, especially given the fact there are other incidents of this.
COOPER: And it is a form of assault.
HOSTIN: Absolutely. Can you be charged with manslaughter by vehicle.
HOUCK: If it is intentionally driving crazy and if he hurts himself in the back, that officer is criminally responsible.
HOSTIN: That is still intentional, exactly. And, you know, the city was on notice of this and my understanding is the city asked the department of justice to review the police department over a year ago. And so this is, you know, something that the police department had notice of.
HOUCK: I'm wondering if the driver is the man who is not speaking.
COOPER: And that is one of the things we don't know exactly which of -- what role that officer who is not speaking played in all of this.
We're told, professor, that the toxicology reports won't be available now for several weeks. Isn't that something the hospital would have already done?
[20:09:59] KOBILINSKY: Of course. I think he was in the hospital for about five days. I think they know exactly what was in his bloodstream and what was circulating around his body.
But there are some very unusual types of drugs that you wouldn't pick up in a
I think he was in the hospital for about five days. I think they knew exactly what was in his bloodstream and what was circulating around his body. But there are some very unusual types of drugs that you wouldn't pick up in a typical hospital drug screen where the forensic toxicology labs are more refined and do different kinds of testing so there might be some surprised but I doubt it.
COOPER: All right, Professor Kobilinsky, thank you, Sunny Hostin and Harry Houck as well.
A bit later tonight, more on the Baltimore's history as we have been discussing -- mentioned putting suspects in police vans without buckling them and later having to pay out big legal settlements for what happens on the rides.
But coming up next, a damaging report, the telling special treatment given to the Tulsa volunteer deputy, friend of the sheriff and big donor to the department and whom mistook his revolver for the taser and killed a suspect, all of which was caught on tape. Now his lawyer joins to address some of the allegations made in this report.
[20:14:33] COOPER: There is breaking news tonight in the case of the volunteer deputy in Tulsa who shot and killed the suspect. The Tulsa County district attorney says he is highly concern about recent allegations involving actions of the sheriff's office. We will have more that in moment.
Deputy Robert Bates pleaded not guilty this week to a charge of second degree manslaughter for killing Eric Harris. At the same hearing he was granted clearance to do to a vacation to the Bahamas for planned family vacation. His role was a volunteering deputy was already controversial. And now, documents, shown that that in an investigation back in 2009 concluded that Bates got special treatments and that the training rules were not only bent got him, but supervisors were also intimidated or I should say supervisors intimidated employees to look the other way.
Martin Savidge has more.
[20:15:18] MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A 2009 special investigation by the Tulsa county sheriff's office found that the reserve deputy Robert Bates was insufficiently trained and given special treatment including policies had been violated and continues to be violated with regard to special treatment shown to reserve deputy Robert Bates with regard to his field training.
The investigation included interviews with employees who said they felt intimidated by the sheriff officials to help Bates. One supervisor said when Bates was confronted about overstepping his training and authority. Bates reportedly replied, well, I can do it and if you don't like it, you can talk to Sheriff Glanz.
Those training concerns have resurfaced in the aftermath of Bates' April 2nd shooting death of Eric Harris, the suspect in an undercover law enforcement sting who fled authorities. Bates said he killed Harris by accident, believing he was using his taser when in reality he fired his gun.
The attorney for Harris' family said Bates wasn't qualified to be on the force but received preferential treatment because he made donations to the agency and was a friend of the sheriff.
At a contentious news conference on Monday, the sheriff Stanley Glanz admitted he and Bates have a friendship dating back 25 years.
SHERIFF STANLEY GLANZ, TULSA COUNTY: I was referred to Mr. Bates at that time. He became my insurance agent and insured my vehicles in my home for a lot of years.
SAVIDGE: The two have even gone on vacation together and Bates has donated cars and equipment to the sheriff's office. And to the 2009 investigation, sheriff Glanz recalled its very differently.
GLANZ: I believe that they found there was no special treatment.
SAVIDGE: In fact, the review found just the opposite which raises more questions as to why nothing was ever done about his findings.
Speaking to NBC, Bate's attorney said he hadn't seen the 2009 memo but denied his claims the reserve deputy received any preferential treatment or lack training.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just know that he received hundreds of hours of training since 2009 and I know that no one at the operation had any complaints.
SAVIDGE: But the 2009 memo shows that is not true. Meanwhile Bates' defense team released more than 60 pages of documents to support their claim. But some information is still missing. The documents CNN reviewed do not show Bates was qualified on the .357 handgun he shot Harris with.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Should Mr. Bates been out there that day?
GLANZ: Yes, he should have been.
COOPER: Well, Martin Savidge joins me now.
What can you tell us about the new information submitted to the district attorney's office?
SAVIDGE: Yes, Anderson, this came out just late this afternoon. And essentially, it seems to be referring to the 2009 memo. And in the statement it says new information has been submitted to this office regarding the actions in the sheriff's office that are worm worthy of further information beyond the scope of this manslaughter case.
So, it implies the D.A. has got a whole new investigation on his hands. Meanwhile, it was (INAUDIBLE) documents that came from the Tulsa county sheriff's office. They say are going to cooperate with the D.A.'s new investigation and they're launching an investigation of their own to find out how the 2009 memo got released to the public.
COOPER: I mean, in that 2009 memo, and I think it is eye-opening because multiple officers are reporting the pressure that they felt, the intimidation they felt from supervisors in support of Bates.
SAVIDGE: Right, exactly that. And it appears that that pressure came from very high places and it begs the question, if there were violations as severe as pointed out by this report, why was nothing done and why wasn't it acted upon. And that seems to be what the D.A. is wondering now.
COOPER: Martin, thanks very much for the reporting.
Just a short time ago, I spoke with Robert Bates' attorney Clark Brewster.
COOPER: Clark, he details of these reports are pretty stunning there. I mean, it is the multiple officers, police officers, police officers and employees, with the Tulsa county sheriff's office were intimidated into giving your client special treatment and even falsifying his training records. Do you dispute that? CLARK BREWSTER, ROBERT BATE'S ATTORNEY: Yes. Yes, the report speaks
for itself. But this was after a few months he had been on the job. Keep in mind that reserve officers come in different varieties of experience. Some of them come directly from a police department that have had a number of years of experience and into retirement become a reserve officer. Some come from public life that have no police experience at all.
Mr. Bates was a former police officer, about 30 years earlier. He was cleat certified and authorized to be a police officer in Oklahoma.
COOPER: From 30 years ago.
[20:19:59] BREWSTER: Yes, but lacked the training. So, he was in a different category. And when he received into the department, there was some level of concern and some jealousy, I think, and that was voiced to the superiors and it was reviewed. I think the institution responded appropriately, did interviews, did an investigation and took corrective action.
COOPER: I feel like we haven't read the same report because I've read now multiple police officers who gave testimony in this report here saying that they were pressured because of your client's friendship with the guy who ran the department, pressured repeatedly to initial documents that they hadn't written but made it seemed as if they had written saying he doesn't need to get the full, you know, hundreds of hours of training, basically pressuring the time line of training. You say it was kind of petty jealousies. These are seasoned police officers who have given testimony saying and are quoted in this report saying time and time again, we're talking about sergeants and corporals, who are saying time and time again, your client didn't have the training.
BREWSTER: That is just a flat out misstatement of the report. I know the individuals involved and I've spoken to them currently. And the one --
COOPER: Well Corporal Warren --
BREWSTER: Hold on. --
COOPER: That Bates, you know, hadn't gotten enough training, documents he didn't write.
BREWSTER: Yes, Corporal Crittenden (ph) was terminated a year later for improper conduct as a result of Mr. Bates' report. He is now standing for first degree murder in another county represented by the lawyers of this family.
And what you just quoted is just a misinterpretation and a miss quoting of that report. There weren't numerous seasoned officers saying that. There was one officer and one officer that said that he felt Mr. Bates was giving special treatment.
COOPER: Did your client give a watch to his senior officers, to his buddies, in addition to fishing trips?
The report alleges in 2009 your client was actually pulling over vehicles on the road when he wasn't trained to authorize to do so, and when a sergeant approached him about it, he responded, he responded according to report quote, "well, I can do it and if you don't like it you can talk to chief deputy Tim Albin or sheriff Glanz because I'm going to do it. .
BREWSTER: No. That was a rumored report from one person to another that wrote it down. If you talk to those individuals, that was a misunderstanding and that didn't happen and it was remedied.
COOPER: Well, according to this report, that incident results in then she deputy Tim Alvin chastising the sergeant and saying quote "you need to stop messing with him, meaning your client, Bates because he does a lot of good for the county." Did that happen?
BREWSTER: Anderson, he was on the job a few months at this time. Six years has elapsed from that point forward. So when he came on the department, obviously there were people that had issues, that raised issues, they were addressed. He was trained and that's what happened.
COOPER: You are saying as if all these was six years ago. The only reason we're having this conversation is because your client shot a guy at point blank range believing that it was his taser. So that is why we're having this conversation. I mean, to imply that there were problems six years ago, he has a bigger problem right now.
BREWSTER: Well, honestly, you can review the training records and you can level adequate criticism in that regard. And I agree with you, more training is better. But sometimes you can't train for a circumstance that happens in the field.
COOPER: Your client is out on bail. And he was approved to take a month-long vacation in the Bahamas. The Harris family released a statement about that decision. And it reads in part, Mr. Bates' vacation in the Bahamas at this time sends a message of apathy with respect to the shooting in Eric's life. They went on to say at a time when we are still mourning the death of a loved one that he shot down in the street, Mr. Bates will be relaxing and enjoying his wealth and privilege. I wonder what is your reaction to that statement is?
BREWSTER: Well, Mr. Bates' travel plans involve his grandchildren, his daughters. They made plans back in September to go on this trip. And he was really torn, honestly, about whether he should go. But he felt that he's not going to make a difference in what happened to Mr. Harris and he feels terrible about it, but he can still meet the commitments to his family and his loved ones and he didn't want to let his grandchildren down. I respect that. It is not an insult to Mr. Harris that Mr. Bates is a family man and wants to stay connected to his family.
COOPER: Really? You really don't think that if a man shot a loved one of yours and went on vacation into Bahamas that you wouldn't feel that that is an insult?
BREWSTER: If they are disconnected. They are not related. Do you want him to sleep on a bed of nails?
COOPER: But in a nice home might not be bad or think about what he has done or you know, I don't know. I'm just saying.
BREWSTER: Anderson, Anderson.
COOPER: They are upset and you are saying you wouldn't be. That's the answer to the question, I guess.
[20:25:05] BREWSTER: He was devastated, all right. He was absolutely rocked and devastated. He was not only -- the media statements, what can I do for Mr. Harris and his family? That has been his absolute core center intent.
COOPER: Well, Mr. Brewster, I do appreciate your time and thank you very much.
COOPER: Attorney for the Mr. Bates family -- for Mr. Bates there.
Just ahead, new details on steps the family of hostage Warren Weinstein took to desperate measures. In fact, try to bring him safely home.
[20:29:31] COOPER: We're learning more tonight about what the family of American hostage Warren Weinstein had to endure on top of everything else they went through from the moment he fell into captivity until they were told of his death in a U.S. drone strike. There is that tonight as well as how American intelligence discovered the deadly mistake.
We have details from Jim Sciutto.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was only a year after Warren Weinstein was abducted from his home in Lahor, Pakistan in 2011, a source tells CNN. Then his family took a risk, paying a ransom to contacts claiming to represent his captors.
WARREN WEINSTEIN, AMERICAN KILLED BY DRONE STRIKE. It seems that I have been totally abandoned and forgotten.
[20:30:02] SCIUTTO: But the money did not secure Weinstein's freedom. Instead, his captors made new demands for a prisoner exchange. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was always very clear.
SCIUTTO: Suggesting trading Weinstein for alleged terrorists, including Aafia Siddiqui, a prominent female jihadi currently serving an 86 year sentence in the U.S. The Weinstein family now fears the money may have gone to the wrong people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And unfortunately what happens is many families get sucked in to a farce. The family is very emotional because they want their loved one back and they get drawn into this.
SCIUTTO: His purported captors referred to themselves as Afghans and not al Qaeda. And they taunted the Weinstein family, telling them ISIS wanted Warren and were preparing an orange suit for him, meaning the clothes worn by other ISIS hostages during their beheadings. When U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was released by the Taliban, one of Weinstein's alleged captors even bragged that he was also one of Bergdahl's kidnappers. The U.S. now believes they inadvertently killed Weinstein in a drone strike in January, the first sign of trouble immediately after the strike on the al Qaeda compound, when U.S. intelligence observed not four bodies being removed as expected, but six. The additional two now believed to be Weinstein and fellow hostage, the Italian Giovanni Lo Porto. But Weinstein's captors kept reaching out, the final contact with them came earlier this month when the family asked for a proof of life. Proof of life they never received.
COOPER: So Jim, I'd imagine what happened with Weinstein family, they are dealing allegedly with people who were not really Warren Weinstein's captors is one of the reasons the U.S. government doesn't want families dealing directly with negotiations.
SCIUTTO: No question. I mean you see all the risks here, the doubts as to whether the interlocutors were actually connected to the actual captors of Warren Weinstein, that's the question - you see that, with the change of demands and where that money went. But what is interesting, Anderson, is that they've been talked it was illegal for families to offer to pay ransoms. It's interesting. You know, the government doesn't necessarily stand in the way of that, they wouldn't necessarily consider it material support for terrorism but there are other risks and we see that playing out here.
COOPER: All right, Jim Sciutto. We appreciate that. Jim, thanks.
Joining us now someone who've had the duty and with it, the burden of ordering deadly drone strikes. Retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling. Also with us is CNN political analyst Josh Rogin, a columnist for "Bloomberg View." General, as I said, you were involved in executing drone strikes in Iraq, what do you say to the criticism that they pose a risk to innocent civilians including in this case Americans being held captive. Is whatever gain they provide worth the risk in your opinion?
LT. GEN. MARK HERTLING, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, Anderson, when you put together a kinetic strike package of either drones or aircraft against a specific target, the American people just do not understand the amount of intelligence that goes into conducting those kinds of strikes and putting a package together. There are sometimes weeks and months of intelligence put together. You have to confirm and deny. And I was involved in a strike one time, not with a drone, but with an aircraft where we were literally watching the target and at the last minute we thought everything was clear, we were getting ready to launch a missile and at the last minute, a couple of children came near the target area so we called off the strike and that is the kind of risk analysis and risk mitigation you attempt to take, but you don't always get it right. And it is unfortunate and it's troubling when bad things like this one happened.
COOPER: Josh, you've raised a lot of questions about the drone program. What about what General Hertling said, that in a war terrorism like this, there are, you know, as much as you can try to prevent it, there are going to be some casualties, civilian casualties and that is one of the realities?
JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. I mean I think two things. One, the question is not whether or not there are risks in these operations or whether or not these operations should be done with checks and balances. The question really is, do we have the accountability and the transparency that we need to know that these risks are being mitigated properly.
I mean let's remember here, the military has a record of under- counting civilian casualties, the statistics are almost impossible to come by and there is no transparency on whether the legal justification, there's no transparency on what the process is.
So, you know, the argument that you get from intelligence people that we should just basically take their word that everything possible was done is -- is granted to a point. But when you have a tragedy like this where a mistake was clearly made, that is when members of Congress in both parties and people who are concerned with human rights and civil liberties are going to raise additional questions and I think that is what you are seeing here today.
COOPER: General, I mean what about that transparency and better accountability?
HERTLING: Yeah. I don't understand what Josh is talking about when he mentions transparency. I think there's got to be a level of confidentiality and in fact, secrecy in some of the intelligence gathering. And in fact, every time we conducted the strike in this kind of operations, who literally, on my right-hand side was a lawyer saying we were meeting the rules of engagement that we were taking all proper measures that risks were being mitigated that we considered collateral damage and all of those things were taken into consideration.
HERTLING: So, from a transparency perspective, the operators, the intelligence analysts, all of those that were involved, and whenever there was civilian casualties involved, that we knew about, an investigation was immediately conducted afterwards to see what we did wrong and how do we do it better the next time. So, all of those things actually are considered. And it is a very difficult and challenging approach. Especially when you are dealing with an enemy that is using asymmetric measures, is sometimes using civilian targets either as hostages in the target area to protect people and equipment and even, in many cases, using those same civilians as shields. When you know about that you call off the strike. When you don't know about it, unfortunately tragedies occur.
COOPER: Josh, how do you draw the line between transparency and maintaining an element of surprise against al Qaeda targets?
ROGIN: Well, I think what we need to do is we need to compare those statements of senior officials with the facts as we know them, right? Out of the eight Americans, who have been killed by U.S. drone strikes, only one was actually targeted, at least two of them were probably not guilty or part of al Qaeda at all. You know, out of the number of strikes that we know of, there have been hundreds if not thousands of terrorists taken off of the battlefields, but there's also been hundreds of civilian casualties and President Obama in his 2013 speech on this, he said that there has to be a near certainty that civilians will not be killed and it's legitimate to ask questions about whether or not that's really being enforced. He also said he was going to end these signature strikes, the strikes that are based on behavior, and not attached to actual people that we actually know we actually want to target and those strikes apparently didn't end as was revealed yesterday.
Today, speaking to the -- the office of the director of National Intelligence staff Obama said very clearly that yes, these strikes are necessary, but the national security is strengthened when we do it in accordance with our values and that includes accountability and checks and balances and we can have a good faith debate about how we do that while also protecting the secrecy of the missions, but the fact is that many people in Congress on both sides of the aisle don't feel that that balance is being struck correctly and the unfortunate tragic murder of Warren Weinstein is example of that.
COOPER: General, what do you ...
HERTLING: Anderson, I listened to Representative King the other day talking about the fact that he had seen an operation that had been conducted against a target that al Qaeda enemy in Afghanistan and he said he was amazed at the measures that were being taken by the military and the intelligence sources, in one case, CIA to do the right things.
I think when people see how these strikes are conducted versus read about how they are conducted they say, wow, it's pretty impressive in terms of not only the operations and the intelligence combinations, but also the legal manifestations and what you get in terms of legal representatives ensuring people are living by the rules of engagement.
COOPER: Mark Hertling, I appreciate you being on. Josh Rogin as well, I appreciate the discussion. Just ahead, even before the death of Freddie Gray, there were serious questions about how Baltimore police treated people, allegedly throwing them into police vans and then violently tossing them around during so called rough rides that sometimes, you know, at least in case in 2005 left somebody paralyzed. That story is next.
COOPER: We're talking tonight about the admission that Baltimore police did not follow procedure that called for prisoners to be seat belted in the back of transport vans. We're also talking about so- called rough rides. It was a complaint long before the death of Freddie Gray. Back in 2005, Dondi Johnson (ph) suffered paralyzing injuries during a trip in the back of a police van. He later died. His relatives won a $7.4 million judgment against the city. The year before, jury awarded Jeffrey Olsten (ph) $39 million after a van ride that left him paralyzed from the neck down. And this is a photo of Johns Hopkins librarian Christine Abbott being arrested back in 2012. She says she was tossed around during a violent unbelted ride on her way to the station, and is suing the city in federal court. She joins us along with her attorney, Steven Norman.
Christine, I want to talk to you about your experience with the Baltimore police department. Take us through what happened to you back in 2012. I understand there was a party at your home, the police were called a couple of times because of the noise. What happened after they arrived?
CHRISTINE ABBOTT, ALLEGES ABUSE BY BALTIMORE PD: So the police came and they were pretty aggressive from the start. So they came and then they started arguing with my husband, who was my boyfriend at the time. They were being very verbally aggressive to him. And it got to the point where they were threatening to taze him. And at that point, I started yelling, which I don't remember exactly what I said, but it was basically for everyone to calm down. And then the next thing I knew, I was on the ground.
COOPER: You were on the ground? You were placed on the ground by the police?
ABBOTT: Yes. I wouldn't say placed, though -- shoved on the ground very forcefully.
COOPER: And then what happened?
ABBOTT: My shoulder was hurting really badly. They had pounded it into the ground. And then they stood me up for a while, and I was waiting for whatever to happen next to happen, and my dress had ripped while I was on the ground, or I guess when they had grabbed me or when I was on the ground. And I was exposed, my breasts were exposed, and they just had me standing there for anyone to see. So eventually they pushed me into the paddy wagon.
COOPER: And you were handcuffed when you were put into the back of the wagon?
ABBOTT: Yes, behind my back I was handcuffed. COOPER: And did they seat belt you or strap you in, in any way?
ABBOTT: No. They did not. They just pushed me in and closed the door.
COOPER: Were you doing anything that prevented them from putting the seat belt on you? And I ask you this because the lawyer for the police in the Freddie Gray case said there could be dangers for officers trying to secure a person who is combative, and that is why sometimes the seat belt is not put on.
ABBOTT: No. I mean, they just pushed me in there, and that was it.
COOPER: Did they place you on the seat?
ABBOTT: The seat is kind of sideways, so they sort of put me in sideways, but they didn't really place me. I was just kind of like thrown in there, and that was it.
COOPER: And describe the ride in the van once you started moving. What was it like?
ABBOTT: It was really bumpy. They were driving very fast and aggressively. They took really wide, fast turns. I was just sliding around in there. It was all metal, you know, nothing -- I couldn't hold on to anything because my hands were behind my back. I had no way to brace myself, and I wasn't strapped down. It was very bumpy and quite scary.
COOPER: Steve, how difficult is it for a citizen to file a complaint against the Baltimore police department?
STEVEN NORMAN, ATTORNEY: Well, Anderson, you can file the complaint, but the circumstances here are -- I believe there are at least three to five police officers, and you've got, you know, one or two victims. So without video, or without some other kind of objective evidence that contradicts what the officers are saying, these cases are tough. And that is the majority of these cases. You don't have video. And you almost need that in order to increase your odds to prevail in these kinds of cases.
COOPER: Christie, do you -- you can't put yourself in the mind of a police officer who is driving the vehicle, but do you believe the way the vehicle was being driven was in some way necessary in terms of needing to get someplace fast, or do you think the driving and the wide turns was intentional to have you thrown about?
ABBOTT: I think it was completely intentional. I don't think there was any reason to have to drive like that. There is no reason to rush us anywhere. I don't think there was any reason for us to even be in that van in the first place. And they -- I think it was completely intentional the way they drove. I absolutely do.
COOPER: So Steve, what -- you file a report and you make a complaint and then -- and then what?
NORMAN: Well, Anderson, this is a federal civil rights claim. But it is a difficult process, which can often take years. And it's always tough going up against these police departments. And once again, without objective evidence, it is an uphill battle.
COOPER: Christie, I appreciate you talking about your experience and thank you. And Steve Norman as well, thank you.
ABBOTT: Thank you.
NORMAN: Thank you, Anderson.
COOPER: And one last note, I do want to point out, we reached out to the Baltimore police department with regards to the case. They told us they are not commenting at this time.
Just ahead, Anthony Bourdain, taking over my kitchen and my house, he does some cooking, he has got quite a story to share about the season premiere, "Parts Unknown" which happens Sunday when "360" continues.
COOPER: The new season of "Antony Bourdain: Parts Unknown" debuts this Sunday on CNN. The chef's destination is South Korea with an intoxicating twist. There is certainly a lot of drinking and a lot of food. Recently, Tony came to my house and did some Korean cooking for me and we talked about the season debut. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: So with this upcoming - you go to South Korea and to celebrate that you are going to cook a South Korean dish.
ANTHONY BOURDAIN, CNN HOST: It is called [inaudible] or budajige (ph). And it came as so many great dishes out of poverty and desperation and in this case, the American military presence, that a hungry country with very little war time - very little animal protein available, and people were scavenging, literally savaging out of trash bins, out - outside of Army bases - this is one of the first things I thought of when we started to talk about doing this. I thought what is Anderson really going to be freaked out by, what's really going to offend him?
COOPER: I think it just smells already quite bad.
BOURDAIN: And terrifying him.
COOPER: And what did you say? How do you say it, again?
BOURDAIN: Burajige (ph).
COOPER: Burajige, I think.
BOURDAIN: A big wad of ground pork. That is sort of luxurious, you probably wouldn't have that back in war time. But it gets better and better.
COOPER: Hot dogs.
BOURDAIN: Or Vienna sausages.
COOPER: All right, what else are we doing?
BOURDAIN: Oh, lest we forget, the most important component, God wants you to eat this, Anderson --
COOPER: So, we've got pork, you've got hot dogs and now you are adding spam.
BOURDAIN: I know it seems counter intuitive.
COOPER: I never - I never ...
BOURDAIN: Oh, that is the sound of quality.
BOURDAIN: Oh, wait.
BOURDAIN: Kim chi.
COOPER: Is that what that smell is?
BOURDAIN: The smell of deliciousness.
COOPER: Wow, it is pungent.
BOURDAIN: You know, and when the Koreans are our new overlords, which should be in around, you know, any day now, they are going to remember your aspersions. A little onion.
BOURDAIN: Oh, yeah.
COOPER: I can honestly say this is the last thing in the world I want to eat.
BOURDAIN: You say that now. But just wait.
COOPER: So, in this episode in South Korea you drink a lot.
BOURDAIN: As one sort of has to in Korea. And it is a reason I -- I do -- I love Korea. I love going there. But it takes me about three years of recovery time between Korea shows because they drink. They party - and ...
COOPER: And you have to drink? BOURDAIN: And you have to drink. There are bars and restaurants that
are built around Korean drinking games. They are good drinkers there.
But it is part of corporate culture as well. It is a team-building thing. And so if the boss wants to go drinking, you're going drinking. And you are staying up all night.
The HR department are coming with you.
BOURDAIN: All right. Behold.
COOPER: So this looks great. I have got to say.
BOURDAIN: It is very good.
See, I've done good in this world.
COOPER: This is good. Army stew.
BOURDAIN: Oh, it is so good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Who knew, army stew, it is very good and the Kim Chi actually is delicious. Tune in for the season premiere of Anthony Bourdain "Parts Unknown" this Sunday at 9:00 P.M. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.
Up next, a volcano that's already covered some areas in nearly two feet of ash. Could it actually erupt again? Stay tuned.
COOPER: Let's go to quick update on some other stories. Gary Tuchman is here with the "360" bulletin. Gary.
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, we begin with breaking news. Jurors have convicted the last three defendants of manslaughter in hazing in the beating death of a Florida A&M drum major. Robert Champion was killed in 2011. Most of the 12 other band members charged of the case took plea deals.
Police in Italy have arrested at least ten people with alleged ties to al Qaeda in raids across the country. Investigators saying some of the suspects were under surveillance for ten years and had direct contact with Osama bin Laden. They are accused of plotting attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Vatican as part of a quote, "big jihad in Italy. The chief prosecutor says wire taps signals a possible attack in St. Peter's Square in March 2010 that never happened.
And authorities in Chile fear another eruption at any moment from the volcano that's spewed huge amounts of ash. Twice this week more than 4,000 people have been evacuated, some international flights have been canceled.
TUCHMAN: Anderson, those are amazing pictures.
COOPER: Incredible, Gary, thank you very much. That does it for us. Have a great weekend. The CNN original series "High Profits" starts now.