ISIS Takes Iraq City of Ramadi; ISIS Operative Killed by U.S. Special Ops; ISIS Making Gains Despite U.S. Raid in Syria.
CUOMO: A major victory or a step forward, however you want to look at it. One way or another, it was a good day for ISIS in Iraq. The key city of Ramadi falling to their fighters. Meanwhile, U.S. officials are assessing a trove of intelligence, they say, after a special forces raid killed a key ISIS commander in Syria. Let's figure out the up and down on these two developments here. We have counterterrorism analyst Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and CNN military analyst Major General James "Spider" Marks. General, start with you. Give us some perspective. ISIS took this big city, they wanted it, they have it, it means that the coalition is losing. Fair assessment?</s>MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS (RET.): No, it doesn't mean the coalition is losing. What that means is the coalition has essentially acknowledged that they are not in the proper position, they're not aligned appropriately to resist ISIS in Ramadi. To ISIS, Ramadi is important only because it allows them some freedom of movement. But also bear in mind, Chris, by taking Ramadi, ISIS now has to control it, they've got to provide some form of governance. How long they are able to do that, who knows. What's significant is that when ISIS has the momentum, they choose where and when they want to exert themselves. That's what Iraq has got to do with coalition support, is to break the back of ISIS momentum. That's what we're really talking about here.</s>CUOMO: The general often says to me that every time they take land it's now a test for them to show whether or not they can govern it, because that's what they say they want, so sometimes it's a mixed blessing. On the other side, you have Secretary of State John Kerry who said every country in the region is against them. They are all fighting against what he is calling Daesh. That kind of is a vote of no confidence also. If everybody is involved in fighting and they are still gaining ground, isn't that a problem?</s>DAVEED GARTENSTEIN-ROSS, COUNTERTERRORISM ANALYST: It absolutely is. The fall of Ramadi, let there be no mistake about it, it's a major setback for coalition forced. I agree with the general that it doesn't mean the coalition is actually losing. If you look at what - ISIS' trajectory, it's on a downward spiral right now, although one worry is still extraordinarily dangerous. But this is a big setback, not just because they captured new territory, but also because Ramadi was the birthplace of the what was called the Sahwa, or awakening movement, in 2006. This was the Sunni tribal movement that helped to push back ISIS' predecessor, al Qaeda, in Iraq. And a lot of countries are still looking to Sunni tribal engagement as a major factor, a major tool that they would like to use to push back ISIS. If so, we should watch for the kind of slaughters that are occurring on the ground right now because it's really dangerous. It's going to have tremendous strategic implications.</s>CUOMO: So staying with you, what was going on in Syria at the same time that this was happening in Iraq was that the U.S. intelligence forces, Special Ops, say that they took down a big target. Are they right? Is it a big target and this trove of intelligence, do you buy into it?</s>GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: Yes, I think it is a big target. It's not just Abu Sayyaf, who is the individual we focused on, but the press reporting indicates that there were actually four different important ISIS leaders there, which means that they were probably in some sort of meeting. One of them was a deputy war minister, another one was a deputy communications minister. The kind of information that you're going to get from Abu Sayyaf includes, for example, presumably who is smuggling out oil via the black market and who they are doing business with. If the U.S. follows this up and really punishes those individuals, it could either do significant damage to ISIS' ability to sell oil or it could also raise the cost for ISIS of doing this, such that they aren't able to get the same kind of money that they are used to.</s>CUOMO: Follow the money and often you wind up getting where you want to be. General, play on the irony that it will be a woman, the wife here, that ISIS is so intent on degrading and demeaning their position, but the wife may wind up being the key to the intel. Tell us about that.</s>MARKS: I think she probably will be. The fact that Abu Sayyaf now is gone is probably good news, but what the Special Operators were able to take out of there is some pretty significant intelligence that really is going to lead us to what the revenue channels are that allows ISIS to fund the activities that are ongoing right now. What we hope has happened, as a result of that, is there's now a new target list of potential targets where our operators can go after these various locations that have been having financial and revenue dealings with ISIS. If we can cut that off, we've really - and that's what -- We have really eliminated ISIS' ability to maintain momentum, a I was just discussing earlier. And it really keeps those lines of operation -- the United States military operates on lines of operations and financial is one of those. If we can degrade that, that's a really good solid step that's the foundation for everything they try to do, if we can degrade that.</s>CUOMO: And what names and understandings the wife can provide could be instrumental there as well. I know that's why the intel community is excited about this. Let me ask you something else about intel that's in the news right now, Daveed. You've got the Patriot Act expiring in relevant parts. You have this new one coming up, the hot button issue, Section 215, which deals with surveillance that captures American communications. Are you worried about the pendulum swinging too far the other way in favor of restricting privacy and the ability to gather intelligence or you think you'll be okay anyway?</s>GARTENSTEIN-ROSS: I think it's a very hard set of issues. There's certainly intelligence value to capturing mass communications. There also are tremendous privacy implications. This is something that I think we, as a country, haven't yet worked out. Where do you strike the balance? I think it's not easy to do. The pendulum is going to swing in one direction and another before we work out what security and privacy and the increased pervasiveness of technology into every aspect of our lives. That's being a very intimate thing means in the 21st century.</s>CUOMO: So General, how do you sell it to the American people? Because we keep hearing the threat is worse now. It's harder online. We need more tools, not less tools. How do you sell it to the American people who do not want big brother to dominate American life?</s>MARKS: That truly is the challenge. Our security is paramount. That's why we structured a government to begin with. That's why our founders said we have to protect these rights that we have, we've got to be able to sustain our ability to provide for the freedoms that we can enjoy. But the issue really is there will be more tools, Chris, as you described. There will never be fewer tools. It's a matter of maintaining this ungoverned common, as what we call the internet. There are essentially no rules that exist in there. There are rules that exist in every other common in space, spacey (ph) ground, but not in the internet. Yet, we have incredible freedoms, we're always going to enjoy those freedoms, but there -- it must be an acknowledgment there will be a shutting down of some of that access as our vulnerabilities increase accordingly.</s>CUOMO: It won't be lost on our audience that the right involved here, privacy, not one that's found specifically in the Constitution but one that has certainly evolved here and is held very dear by the American population. General, thank you very much. Daveed, as always. Michaela.</s>PEREIRA: Alright, Chris. Jeb Bush talking same-sex marriage. The potential Republican candidate leaving no room for interpretation. Will his views on matrimony help or hurt his chances of winning the White House?