Terror Suspects Lost; A Laundry List of Scandals
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: It's 4:00 p.m. Do you know where your individual's identified as known or suspected terrorists are? The federal government didn't. I'm Jake Tapper and this is THE LEAD. The national lead, the story we just broke. Suspected terrorists in the U.S. entered into the witness protection program, they were given new names, but the Justice Department did not tell any other agencies, and at one point, poof, two of them disappeared, another stunning example of government incompetence in a week with no shortage of them. The politics lead, with the disappearing terror suspects, a politicized IRS, questions about Benghazi and much more, Republicans now think the wind is at their back for the midterms and more. But will they overplay their hand? Former Senator Rick Santorum joins us. And the pop lead. It's too bad Kerry Washington can't be in the scandals I have to cover. The hit TV show "Scandal" has its season finale and we visit show creator Shonda Rhimes, the undisputed queen of prime-time drama. Welcome to THE LEAD. Now the national lead. As we reported first on CNN, two individuals identified as known or suspected terrorists entered the Justice Department's witness protection program. According to the Justice Department inspector general, the U.S. Marshals were at one point unable to locate them. This is all in this interim report obtained by CNN. But here is the bigger issue than these two individuals. At some point, these two cooperated. They got the full Henry Hill witness relocation treatment, new names, new lives. But amazingly the U.S. Marshals Service was not sharing that information with other agencies before May 2012, information like their new names of these new witnesses. So good luck trying to spot them on the no-fly list. They could just get right on a plane. And the Justice Department is not disputing this report. They released a statement that reads in part: "The Justice Department agrees with the inspector general's audit report that the WitSec" -- that's Witness Security -- "Program's requirement's for admitting and moderating participants needed to be enhanced for terrorist-linked witnesses." Now, the Justice Department underlines that these two individuals are not in the United States, they're not wanted, they're no longer a part of the witness protection program. And the Justice Department claims that since the inspector general drew attention to this and other national security issues dealing with the Witness Security Program, those two suspects are now -- quote, unquote -- "accounted for." Now, what does accounted for mean? Does the Justice Department know exactly where these two individuals identified as known or suspected terrorists are located? Well, Justice Department officials would not say. This controversy so fresh that President Obama apparently didn't have his talking points ready during a press conference earlier today. Listen closely to this and you can hear our chief White House correspondent, Jessica Yellin, ask about it at the end of this press availability.</s>BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, everybody.</s>JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Can you comment on your witness protection program?</s>OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you, guys.</s>YELLIN: No comment on your Justice Department's I.G. report?</s>TAPPER: He totally ignored that one. Well, that's OK. So, these known or suspected terrorists are in the wind. We don't know their names, not the real names, not their fake ones, pretty much the point of witness protection, of course. But it does appear that the government tripped over itself once again and made it easier for these individuals to fall off its radar. I want to bring in CNN national security analyst Juliette Kayyem. Juliette, good to see you again. Thanks so much. Let's start with the fact that there are known terrorists or suspected terrorists in the witness protection program. What's that all about? You're a former homeland security official. Explain that to people.</s>JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it's because there are big terrorists and what you might call sort of small fish terrorists. And what happens in these cases is that you want to give protection to people who know what's going on in terrorist organizations or any criminal organization, give them a new identity, protect their family and get information from them that will then get the bigger fish. And I think it's hard for people to sort of separate between the big and the little terrorists. But the truth is, is that if you can get information about a big terrorist enterprise or any criminal enterprise, that is good. You sort of give up getting the smaller guys for the potential of getting the bigger guys. And we're seeing this all the time. We're seeing it in the relationship in Boston or what's going on with Dzhokhar, right, is that are we going to go after the death penalty with him or are we going to offer just life so that we can get information for him? That's a huge debate going on here right now.</s>TAPPER: But would it be normal? I understand all that, obviously, especially when you're treating terrorism prosecutions within the criminal justice system as opposed to in the military system. But would it be normal for individuals to then, after they're put in the Witness Security Program to then leave the Witness Security Program? Is that -- would we not keep an eye on them?</s>KAYYEM: We probably would, and that's what the I.G. -- we should -- and that's what the I.G. report is in the Department of Justice, is that once they are given this new identity, no one else is going to know who they are. And so the fact that they weren't put into the terrorist screening list, this is the big list that sort of feeds other databases, it's just wrong. The I.G. said it was wrong. The Department of Justice says that it's going to fix it. You need their names,their new names because that's their new passports. That's what they're going to be traveling with. We don't know their old identities anymore. Those identities are gone. It is not uncommon to get people out of the witness protection program. That happens all the time, because either the case is over and they go on with their lives or they say, as may be in this case, that they have left the country, so that we don't know them anymore. We don't have an obligation to them anymore. There is a -- there was a clear gaffe. It's an historic gaffe, in some ways, Jake, that the fact that the FBI and DOJ view things as prosecution-related rather than intelligent-related.</s>TAPPER: Right.</s>KAYYEM: And the I.G. said this is just -- this is not, right? You need to fix this.</s>TAPPER: But we -- you and I have talked about this at length, stovepiping, intelligence and national security agencies keeping information to themselves, not sharing it with other law enforcement. We saw this in Boston with the FBI not telling local Boston law enforcement about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Who knows if that would have had any sort of impact at all. We don't know. But they're supposed to be sharing that information and here we have it again. Why would the Justice Department not share these new identities with the people who make up these terrorist watch lists?</s>KAYYEM: It's a great question. And how did that -- I have that question, too. If a decision was made at the front end that this information was somehow not relevant to a terrorist screening center, this is the overarching list, with their new names and their new passports, that decision was made for all of them. It wasn't just a particular person. That is a policy decision. And finding out why that was made and what was the thinking, part of this is that just law enforcement mentality that has clearly, as we have seen, sort of not broken through enough in terms of the intelligence sharing. So, these two guys are important. Apparently, they're found. But the bigger issue is how can those policies be being made at the front end? Once the I.G. identified it, it appears to be fixed. You are going to want their new names in the system, because even though they may be small fry terrorists, they are involved with criminal elements. These are not good guys. This is not some random victim who saw the culprits. These are people who are engaged with a criminal enterprise.</s>TAPPER: Exactly. Julie Kayyem, CNN national security analyst, thank you so much.</s>KAYYEM: Thank you, Jake.</s>TAPPER: In other national news, apparently Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was visited by a muse in addition by police when he was cowering inside that boat in Watertown where he was captured. A law enforcement source tells CNN that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev scribbled a confession right on the boat interior. Now, that matches -- contents of the scribbling confession, it matches a lot of what THE LEAD originally reported from his interviews with authorities, like how the attacks were payback for U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. CNN's Suzanne Candiotti is also live in Boston. Susan, the reporting I just shared, that is from you. What else have you learned?</s>SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Well, it's hard to imagine if you try to picture this, Jake, that while this man, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is hiding inside the boat and bleeding, they described him as being weak from his wounds, that he's actually scrawling something on the inside of the boat, not only, in effect, as you said, confessing to what happened, allegedly setting off those bombs with his big brother, but also saying that it didn't matter to him, in effect, that the victims in this bombing were really collateral damage. He had no regard for them, and also, as it turns out, saying that he -- or we're learning as well that he told investigators this very same thing, at his bedside, while they were interrogating him. Whether he thought he was going to die and he wanted to make sure he got his message out, we're left to wonder that, Jake.</s>TAPPER: And, Susan, so he wrote this after the attack. Clearly, based on what we have heard and what you have reported about what he wrote, he didn't feel any remorse. Could this impact the case against him that law enforcement authorities are now building?</s>CANDIOTTI: Well, it's certainly a question that's being asked and debated. He willingly, according to our sources, told the investigators a lot of things, for example, that the bomb was made right there in his older brother's apartment, and that they tried it out and they found bomb residue to match up with what he said. The question is, is, by apparently showing little feeling for the victims in this case, we talked to our CNN lead analyst to get a feel from him, Jeffrey Toobin, about what could happen as his defense attorneys try to move forward with their defense here. Here is what Jeff Toobin told us.</s>TAPPER: I'm not sure that we're going to have Toobin bite. But, in any case, paraphrase what Jeff said for us.</s>CANDIOTTI: Exactly. Just to paraphrase, what he said in effect was the callousness and disregard that he showed certainly won't do him any good if this comes before a jury because it shows that he had little feeling. And so if you're trying to avoid the death penalty in this case, and the lawyer who is representing him is very good at keeping her clients away from getting the death penalty, that would be a tough hurdle for them to cross, Jake.</s>TAPPER: All right, Susan Candiotti in Boston, thanks so much. Coming up, shelter from the storm, but the president is going to need more than an umbrella after a devastating week soaked in scandal and controversy. And hell hath no fury like Jon Stewart scorned. "The Daily Show" host has been on an unrelenting slam-fest of President Obama. We will hear from our political panel about all of that when THE LEAD continues.