Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here is what’s coming up.
The disappearance of Saudi Journalist, Jamal Khashoggi puts the spotlight on reporters who put their lives on the line. Celebrated Correspondent,
Marie Colvin, gave hers in Syria. And now, the Hollywood Actress, Rosamund Pike plays her in a new film, and she joins us along with Marie’s friend
and fellow journalist, Lindsey Hilsum, who has written a new biography about Marie Colvin’s remarkable life.
Then, is U.S. democracy under assault ahead of November’s mid-term elections? I speak to Professor Carol Anderson about her work exposing
voter suppression.
Plus, imagine being able to edit our DNA. Biochemist Jennifer Doudna tells our Walter Isaacson about some extraordinary new technology.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christian Amanpour in London.
The U.S. Secretary of State is in Riyadh today and he’s met with the Saudi king and also with the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman. He has
briefed President Trump a day after sources say the kingdom is preparing to admit that Jamal Khashoggi’s was the result of a botched interrogation.
But, there is no sign of any public explanation yet no matter how incredulous.
And a growing number of sources are telling us that they consider it highly likely that Khashoggi was assassinated under high-level orders. One source
tells us that he even alerted two western governments about these two days after Khashoggi went missing. Saudi Arabia, of course, continues to
vehemently deny this.
Meantime, the Turkish president today says that his investigators parts of the Saudi consulate in Istanbul were “painted over.” And the Saudi consul
general has now reported left the country. That consulate is where Khashoggi was last seen two weeks ago.
Nic Robertson joins us for the latest Indy investigation from Istanbul.
Nic, thanks for being there on the latest as you know it. And first, to the issue of this allegedly (INAUDIBLE) or explanation from Saudi Arabia,
nothing yet?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: No, nothing yet. And I think perhaps part of the way to understand that is that Saudi Arabia at
the moment is ruled by — essentially by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. And it’s dictated by one person.
So, if he doesn’t want to do something, it doesn’t happen. They were hints that we had over the weekend that he was — or that was about to be this
idea of some alternate statements and different facts, idea that rogue elements perhaps had been involved in Khashoggi’s or disappearance, that
this was somehow the — you know, that the government didn’t know about it somehow. This floated again Sunday evening. And again, nothing came from
that.
So, I — you know, when I look at it and I look at Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit today, he spent just about 10 minutes with the king, the
real ruler in the country, and much longer with the crown prince. The crown prince runs the country right now. The king does not. And for
everything we understand about the crown prince, if he doesn’t want to do something, he doesn’t do it. He has a lot of advisers around him but very
few of his inner circle would dare standup and tell him yes or no. They would wait for him to make a decision.
AMANPOUR: So, Nic, well, let’s first get to the sort of actual hard evidence that the Turkish president himself spoke publicly about today,
that consulate where you’ve been, you know, waiting and watching and reporting for the better part of the last two weeks, has finally been
entered by Turkish investigators. As far as you know, what have they found?
ROBERTSON: And I know is, they spent in (INAUDIBLE) last night. Forensic teams as well. One of our cameramen, Cameraman Cameron Stewart, could see
blue and purple light flashing out of one of the upstairs window. We understand that the forensic investigators, we were told, had the
technology to be able to sort of see if there was DNA in a room that they knew where they want to be going in the building, they knew, they said that
Khashoggi had been murdered and precisely where they wanted to go and what they wanted to do.
Rubble and bricks were removed. They (INAUDIBLE) and a couple of trucks as well. And in the last hour or so, investigators have actually arrived at
the consul general’s house to begin what the foreign minister early said was going to be a search of the consul general’s house and some of the
vehicles there. Because, of course, some of those vehicles were those seen on close circuit television the moments when Jamal Khashoggi disappeared
when Turkish authorities suspect something nefarious happened with him and those vehicles moved off to the consul general’s house.
AMANPOUR: So, Nic, the Turkish authorities have been very leaky and they’ve stuck with the same story, it hasn’t really diverged. And now,
more sources are beginning to say there’s no way that this could have been a botched operation. They point to all those 15 Saudis who arrived there
the day Jamal went to the consulate, they point to some of the personnel who came, they have identified some of them as crown prince’s bodyguards,
they’ve talked about a forensic expert, about bone saw.
Does it sound from your sources that the Turks believe this idea of a botched interrogation? Could it be likely or are they trying still to find
some kind of face-saving way out of this?
ROBERTSON: You know, I think they’re trying to play this in as much as they would like to pressure Saudi officials behind the scenes. I’ve been
told that when they’ve sat with Saudi officials, they’ve said, “Is there anything you’d like to tell us?” But when the Saudi officials stonewall
them, then they released information like those 15 names and then the video of these men arriving from Saudi Arabia by these private jets.
I don’t think for one second that Turkish authorities are fooled by this apparent statement that might come from Saudi officials that it just
doesn’t stand the sniff test. Those private jets flying for Riyadh, we know the routes that they took. But they would have had to have gone
through air traffic control, those people from the closer rounds of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman couldn’t have got here without being sanctioned.
At what point did all this go terribly wrong if that is the account that comes forward and why haven’t over the past two weeks Saudi authorities
spoken up about this botched operation, if that’s what they’re going to do.
So, it just doesn’t pass the sniff test. What the foreign minister here said today was, that it is absolutely critical, absolutely critical were
his words, that there is transparency from the Saudis the moment it was announced that the Turkish investigators were going to get in the consul
yesterday, minutes later a cleaning crew went in.
The Turkish president we have discussed here has talked about toxic chemicals and things being removed and painted over, that doesn’t speak to
transparency. The consul general leaving the country minutes before investigators arrive later this afternoon, to search his premises and
search his vehicles, doesn’t speak to transparency.
I don’t think that the Turkish authorities here are trusting one little bit of Saudi officials. But they see a longer-term relationship in this region
with Saudi Arabia. They perhaps don’t get along with the current leadership there but they are trying to have that relationship be enduring.
And last thing, despite what is — what seems to be clear tensions behind the scenes and an apparent complete lack of trust.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And threading that needle, as you just said, the United States also is looking to its geopolitical relations and figuring out how
to best deal with this. And of course, this is not a story that’s going to go away and we’ll continue to cover it. Nic, thank you very much.
And of course, we’ll have more on the mounting and severe dangers to journalist today in a moment when Movie Star, Rosamund Pike and
Corresponded, Lindsey Hilsum, join us to talk about their new work on the American war reporter, Marie Colvin, who was killed in Syria.
But first, another thread to the bedrock of democracy when voters across the United States cast their ballots in mid-terms exactly three weeks from
today, the world will be watching to see who reaps the cost and the benefits from two unprecedented years of the Trump presidency.
But in the final stretch, election observers are raising red flags. They are warning that many American citizens may not be able to cast a ballot at
all. It’s called voter suppression, when the rules and technicalities of voting become a partisan tactic to weight down the opposition.
My guest’s new book lays out a pernicious threat to the U.S. and its election, it’s called “One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is
Destroying our Democracy.” Professor Carol Anderson is the author. And she says, “The 21st century is littered with bodies of Black votes. And
she’s joining me now from Atlanta.
Professor Anderson, welcome to the program.
CAROL ANDERSON, AUTHOR, “ONE PERSON, NO VOTE”: Thank you so much for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, first and foremost, did I describe voter suppression actually correctly? What is it? Give us the full definition of what it
means.
ANDERSON: Voter suppression — and yes you did lay it out beautifully. It’s using the laws and the tactics to, in fact, target key population of
voters and block their access to the booth, the voting booth.
AMANPOUR: And I guess there are many ways of doing it. So, I’m going to get into that in a second. But you have talked about, you know, the 21st
century being littered with the bodies of Black votes. So, it obviously has a particular direction as far as you’ve said, and you are talking about
Georgia because it is one of the most — you know, most in the spotlight.
Tell me what you mean by that rather provocative sentence?
ANDERSON: And what I mean by that is that when you’re looking around from many of these voter suppression states and these are the states where you
have generally a Republican governor and a Republican state legislator, they’ve crafted the laws particularly after Obama’s election and then after
the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court decision in 2013 that gutted the Voting Rights Act, that what that has done is it has allowed them to craft
the whole series of laws under the guys protecting the integrity of democracy, under the guys protecting the voting booth that, in fact, target
African-Americans, they target the poor, they target Latinos.
They particularly — and in that, and they target youth, student. And males are the groups that voted overwhelmingly for Democrat and voted
overwhelmingly for Barak Obama. Those are the groups that are being targeted because those are the groups that don’t vote in mass for
Republicans.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let’s just take this step by step. First and foremost, last week, the associated press reported that some 53,000 people in
Georgia, nearly 70 percent of them Black, according to the AP, have had their voter registrations placed in limbo because of some kind of mismatch,
in this case, potentially with the driver’s license or Social Security information.
ANDERSON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: The state on the other hand has assured them that they will not be penalized, they will be allowed to vote. Tell me about that. Why will
they not be allowed to vote if the state says they can?
ANDERSON: And so, what happens is, is that that begins to create a kind of confusion. It’s the same way that voter ID creates confusion. Will my ID
work or won’t it work when I go to the voting booth? Will I be turned away?
By creating a sense of confusion instead of certainty about your basic right to vote, it depresses the voter turnout. And so, people begin to
hear that they’re on the pending list, that their voter registration didn’t go all the way through and that they’re going to have to bring some type of
ID, but what kind of ID, to be able to vote. And will the poll workers be educated enough to know that although I’m on the pending list, that my ID
will work.
And so, by creating these levels of confusion, by creating these kinds of obstacles, what they do is systematically depress the voter turnout. And
the mismatch are simple things like a hyphen not being there or an accent mark over your name Rene in — on your voter registration card but not on
your driver’s license.
AMANPOUR: Right. So, Professor Anderson, you teach at Emory University, you’re watching this very closely.
ANDERSON: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And of course, both the candidates for governor, Democrat and Republican, are obviously heavily weighed into this. Let me start by
putting forth what the Democratic Candidate, Stacey Abrams, told — said this weekend a little bit about, you know, what you were just saying and
one of the 53,000 who’s been reported to have their registrations put in limbo.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACEY ABRAMS, DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR GEORGIA GOVERNOR: The professor who is covered by the AP story. This is a college professor who has a hyphen
in her last name. Because the hyphen was left out either by someone typing in the information at the Department of Motor Vehicles or in the
registrar’s office, she was removed from the roles despite being someone who actively vote.
That type of minor error can turn to a major problem. Because she’s a college professor, she knows the systems to go through, to figure out the
solution. But what about those low propensity voters in those tiny communities who are finally stepping up and saying, “This is my turn to
cast my ballot,” only to find that they are disenfranchised. They don’t know that they can go to the polls. They get a confusing letter saying is
something wrong with their registration. And more than likely, they will sit out this election.
The miasma of fear that it’s created through voter suppression is as much about terrifying people about trying to vote as it is about actually
blocking their ability to do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I just want your comment on that. Because she’s expanding on what you were telling us. But on the other hand, the other side says,
“Well, hang on a second, you know, for voting we have to have rock-solid ID and this guarantees a security of our elections and our voting process.”
What do you say to that?
ANDERSON: I say that that whole — that’s based on the myths or basically the lie of voter fraud, and it is a lie. What you hear Brian Kemp, who is
our Secretary of State and is also the Republican candidate for governor, saying is that we have voter fraud, we have rampant — massive rampant
voter fraud and we need IDs in order to protect the integrity of the ballot box.
But, Justin Levitt, a professor out of California, in a study from 2000 to 2014, he found that out of 1 billion votes in the United States there are
only 31 cases of voter impersonation fraud, the kind of fraud that can — voter ID will stop. So, 31 cases over 15 years. We’re talking about two
cases a year out of 1 billion votes.
AMANPOUR: OK.
ANDERSON: So, this is the fraud, the voter fraud lie, that then says we need to have these IDs.
AMANPOUR: So, I just want to — I mean, I’m not trying to interrupt you. I think you’re explaining that really well. But I obviously want to go to
Brian Kemp, who, as you just mentioned, is the Republican candidate for governor, he also happens right now to be Georgia’s Secretary of State and,
as such, administers election.
This is what he said to Fox News about — I mean, he — this is what he said. Listen and then we’ll talk about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your opponent says that you’re trying to suppress the vote by holding up thousands of voter registration applications. What do
you say to that?
BRIAN KEMP, REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR GEORGIA GOVERNOR: That’s a smokescreen trying to hide her radical views. Those folks that are on the pending
list, all they have to do is go to the poll, show their photo ID and they can vote. Again, this is just a distraction from her view of her groups
filing a lawsuit to get noncitizens to vote in the State of Georgia.
We’ve not going to allow that. We’re going to have secure, accessible and fair elections in our state.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, I see you vigorously shaking your head, Professor Anderson.
ANDERSON: Wow. Yes. At least though you hear, so how do we move from Georgians? How did we move from African-Americans being 70 percent of
those who are in the pending list? How did we move from that to having, you know, this is all these noncitizens? This is the Kris Kobach, the
Secretary of State out of Kansas, who was also on head of the Trump’s election integrity commission. This is the same lie.
It’s a xenophobic, it’s the — you know, these immigrants are coming to take over American democracy. But they cannot point, again, like voter
fraud, they cannot point to the kind of massive immigrant take over. It’s simply not there.
So, this is that red herring, this is the smokescreen that’s hiding the fact that we have had since 2016 — from 2016 to 2018, 10.6 percent of
Georgia voters have been purged from the voter rolls, 10.6 percent in two years.
AMANPOUR: So, tell me —
ANDERSON: And we had —
AMANPOUR: Sorry. Tell me what kind of a difference that would make in Georgia, that 10.6 percent.
ANDERSON: Oh, it would make a world of difference because overwhelmingly, the people who are being purged are not White. And Whites makes up the
majority of the Republican party. So, if what you do you is your purge those who are African-American, who are Latino, who Asian-American, then
what you do is you skew the electorate.
And this is going to be a close race. Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp are within a statistical margin of error in terms of the poll. So, voter
turnout is going to be key in this election. But if you cause confusion in the ranks of those who are likely to vote Democrat, then what you have done
is you have skewed the election, who have stolen the election.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you, Professor, because, you know, we’re talking about the studies that you’ve done and in your state you — you know, the
Democrats are saying this is what the Republicans are doing.
But in many states, you know, Democrats are in charge. Are there cases of this happening in those states?
ANDERSON: What you see happening in states where the Democrats are in charge, you will have gerrymandering in some of those states, like in
Maryland, which is also a way of voter suppression. But you don’t get the purges, you don’t get the voter IDs.
You see that happening overwhelmingly in states that have been previously under the Voting Rights Act preclearance, jurisdiction of the Department of
Justice, that the Supreme Court gutted. After that, you saw a massive wave of purges in those states. So much so that you’ve — they’ve estimated
that an additional two million people have been purged based on — that would not have been purged had the Department of Justice and had the Voting
Rights Act been in place. So, what we’re seeing is suppression coming out of the Republican states.
AMANPOUR: So, what do you say, you know, the decline of Black voters in 2016 is the campaigns most misunderstood story, I guess because of what
you’re talking about now. But what do you predict then for the elections of 2018, the current mid-terms?
ANDERSON: What I’m predicting is that now people are on high alert. And what I saw, for instance, in Alabama, in that race in December 2017 between
Roy Moore and Doug Jones, where Doug Jones won a stunning upset victory, was that civil society came out and over — helped overcome all of the
voter suppression techniques that Alabama have put on its Black population.
So, in terms of voter ID, in terms of closing polls, in terms of purges, in terms of not enough machines in minority neighborhoods, all of — in terms
of felony disfranchisement, civil society did that heavy, heavy lifting. And the Black voter turnout in Alabama was 45 percent, which was 5
percentage points higher than it was in the state overall.
AMANPOUR: It’s really fascinating.
ANDERSON: And that’s what I see —
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ANDERSON: Yes. That’s what I see happening here.
AMANPOUR: All right. Well, everybody will be watching because these are some of the most highly anticipated elections that I can remember.
Professor Anderson, thank you.
Now, the right to vote to essential to democracy. And of course, so too is a free press. At a time when journalists are in a particular danger, Jamal
Khashoggi’s being exhibit A right now, we bring you the story of Marie Colvin, a journalist killed while telling the world about the war in Syria.
She did cheat death many times, even losing an eye while she was covering the war in Sri Lanka.
But Marie, in the words of her editor at the London Sunday Times, had a God-given talent to make people care.
Two new and very timely works focus on her work and her life. The movie, “A Private War,” starring Rosamund Pike who uncannily and complete inhabits
our colleague Marie and Marie’s friend the TV Correspondent, Lindsey Hilsum, has written a book called “In Extremis” with exclusive access to
Colvin’s diaries from when she was 13 all the way up to her death.
Both of them join me here to talk about Marie, Jamal, the astonishing power of their work and the heavy price both have paid.
Rosamund Pike, Lindsey Hilsum, welcome to the program.
ROSAMUND PIKE, ACTRESS, “A PRIVATE WAR”: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: I don’t know whether you think about this in real-time, but it could not be better time, this movie, and frankly, your book as well, since
it does highlight Marie’s life but in the context of the severe danger that we journalists are under and people like Marie obviously was.
What do you think about what’s going on right now with the, you know, horrific story of Jamal Khashoggi?
PIKE: I mean, I think we — you know, Matthew Heineman, the director, and I are both very, very proud that this is a film that really celebrates
journalism, you know, that it is a hymn to the danger — real — very real dangers that journalists put themselves in.
And I — I’m not sure that everybody is fully aware of that. You know, it struck actually, I’m reading Lindsey’s book, that in around 2004 or ’05,
the Sundays Times is having to quickly recalibrate and start almost — you imply, almost started reading books on the effects of repeated exposure to
conflicts —
AMANPOUR: You have PTSD —
PIKE: — on life of a journalist.
AMANPOUR: — and all. Yes. Exactly.
PIKE: And now, here we have it, obviously, from the Washington Post this time, of a journalist again who has lost his life in pursuit of his truth
or him for speaking out his truth.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I mean, it’s extraordinary. And you, obviously, are a foreign correspondent and a war correspondent and you’ve written the book
on Marie, “In Extremis.” And you had amazing access to her diaries. But you also know what Rosamund has learnt to know by playing this singular
character.
LINDSEY HILSUM, JOURNALIST AND AUTHOR, “IN EXTREMIS”: I think that the extraordinary thing about Marie is people often say that Marie was
fearless. She wasn’t really fearless but she could always overcome her fear because she was so motivated. She was so highly motivated to sell the
story of victims of war. And that was conscripts as well.
There was nothing really like more than sitting in a muddy trench with a bunch of soldiers and finding out what was going on. But she did think
about her own safety. She put — you know, I often work alongside Marie. But her dangerous threshold was far beyond mine and she always went in
further and stayed longer. That was why she got the best stories. That was why she’s not with us today.
AMANPOUR: What do you think as you were assimilating the character to play her? I mean, you know, what Lindsey says is really true and, you know,
it’s what Jamal did, you know, speak out against his government, you know, Marie and other journalist were in Syria saying things that were seen by
the Assad regime in real-time, particularly since she gave interviews to cable news and radio and all the rest of it.
How did you compute for yourself as an outsider to news —
PIKE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — but as the actress playing this very brave kind of edgy frontiers woman?
PIKE: I love the way you say that. Marie had extraordinary empathy. And what’s always interesting is how with the human cost of war. And I think
in terms of our film, I think it’s very interesting because the depiction of Middle Eastern people in Hollywood movies tends to be as the outsider,
the other — sometimes the extremist, the fanatic, that’s the sort of traditional role.
And here is a movie which goes into and delve into the pain of the people in these conflict regions, particularly the Syrian people, we go with
Libyan people, within Iraq. And that’s not a portrait that many people in the West are often given on film, and it’s something I’m quite proud of.
And I think Marie would have applauded too.
AMANPOUR: We’re going to start actually with one of the clips now because it is when she’s actually meeting Photographer Paul Conroy for the first
time who was with her to the end in Syria. But this is in Iraq and she’s doing her typical thing, wanting to meet up and collaborate with the best
of the best. So, let us just play this and we’ll talk about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PIKE: What’s your name?
JAMIE DORNAN, ACTOR, “A PRIVATE WAR”: Paul.
PIKE: I’m Marie.
DORNAN: I know.
PIKE: Are you freelance?
DORNAN: Always.
PIKE: Any good?
DORNAN: The best.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Paul, the photographer —
PIKE: Yes.
AMANPOUR: — also I think works with you on the script and as a consultant and all the rest. What did you gain from meeting the people who she, not
just knew, but worked in the field with? Plus, how did you get that uncannily accurate depiction of her?
PIKE: Oh, that’s very nice. I mean, Marie was an amazing person, an inimitable presence and I knew that in playing her I had to inhabit her.
It wasn’t just — I couldn’t just play a (INAUDIBLE), I had to play her.
Also, my director was a documentary maker and I knew that probably in an ideal world he would be making a documentary about Marie, which sadly he
can’t. And I knew I had to deliver something that would be as close to the authenticate as I could. So, I knew that involved changing the way I walk,
changing the way I spoke, changing the way I — learning to smoke.
HILSUM: Oh, a lot of that.
PIKE: Which she did a lot.
HILSUM: She (INAUDIBLE) martinis as well.
PIKE: I could — yes, learned to make — mix drink. All of the above. And Paul Conroy came with us, I think just to check out what we were doing
for about a week and to get us up on our feet.
And then, I think he found in our profession something akin to the sort of sense of a troubling bound on the road, you know, with people, whether it’s
a sort of urgent sense of intimacy because you’re having to create something that, you know, delved deep into the human condition in a short
space of time. And it’s that fast track intimacy that I’m sure people in your profession find as well.
And I think he enjoyed it and he stayed with us. And actually, became our onset still photographer, you know, probably a bit of a slight release for
him. But it was very, very valuable time around, because he shared — he gave a real sense at all times of Marie and Paul’s — you know, comradery,
of her, of the moments that she’d go dead quiet because she experienced the fear that Lindsey was talking about. I agree with you, definitely not
fearless. The real courage is feeling it and going there anyway.
HILSUM: Yes.
AMANPOUR: I mean, quick. You’ve seen a clip or two, how does Rosamund measure up as Marie?
HILSUM: Oh, it’s actually quite — it’s — actually, the first time I saw it, it was quite painful because the thing what Rosamund’s has done, which
is so weird to me, is she’s got the way Marie move — moved, you know, sort of spiky angular thing. And it really did feel like Marie was there. And
it was that more than anything else.
I mean, yes, the place, the eyepatch, the voice, but it’s the way she moved and that is what was so extraordinary for me watching it.
AMANPOUR: And given where we are in the story, you know, you worked alongside her many times, I did as well, and you have had unbelievable
access to her most intimate thoughts through her diary since she was 13 years old.
As we move along with the story, give us a little idea of who she was and how she became this person?
HILSUM: Oh, it’s so extraordinary. For me, I mean, I think in writing the biography, one of the most extraordinary memories for me was when I found
this diary of her, little white plastic closed with a key and I said to slit it open and I realized, “Oh, my God. Nobody has opened this since
Marie at the age of 14 locked it.” And in — yes.
And — but then, oh, she was naughty, oh, she was rebellious. And so, she’s brought on Long Island, middle class family, Catholic family, mass
every Sunday. And I think one of my favorite entries, it just goes, to church, (INAUDIBLE), the mother and the father no like.
[13:30:00]
(LAUGHTER)
Oh, I felt that in that rebellious little girl, I saw the woman she became, who I knew.
AMANPOUR: Well, I want to fast forward to a dramatic, toward the end of her life and I want to play one of the last first dispatches she gave from
Homs, which was to Anderson Cooper, and it became really sort of seminal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIE COLVIN, AMERICAN JOURNALIST: It’s a complete and utter lie that they are only going after terrorists. There are rockets shell, tank shells amps
to (ph) aircrafts being fired in a parallel line into the city.
The Syrian Army is simply shelling the city of cold, starving civilians.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: She was in Baba Amr, one of the suburbs, outposts of Homs, and she insisted on staying and that’s part of a whole sort of controversy
between her and Paul and the editors and people who look at what happened to her in the end.
It’s a pivotal moment in the film. What was going through your mind? I mean, you were playing her, you were simulated so much, and yet it’s —
some people might say that determination to stay is what cost her life.
PIKE: Yes, and it’s so funny. My heart’s racing, just — I haven’t been nervous sitting here and then we play that and somewhere in my body I go
back to the feelings that I inhabited playing Marie at that time in her life.
And actually, she was in Homs, they understood that a big assault was coming and it was necessities just to go — to leave. They were halfway
down this storm drain, this four kilometer storm drain, which was the entry and exit point for our any journalist coming in to Homs taken by the FSA
fighters, and she was sort of half way down or a few hundred meters down it and she said, I’ve got to go back. You know, there are 28,000 people there
and I can’t abandon them.
And Paul said to her, you realize if we go back we will die. And she said, I have to go back. This is what we — this is what we do. And she went
back, and he, of course, followed her because he wasn’t going to leave her and he told me, actually, that they — I find this very emotional, so
forgive me, but he said that they both felt very strongly that they might make the deadline for “The Sunday Times” that week and that was here
decision, that motivated her decision to ask Sean Ryan if she could broadcast with CNN and Channel 4 and wherever, BBC. And she — and she
spoke to you.
HILSUM: She called me and I said — and I was furious with her. I sort of said, Marie, why did you go back? And she said, Lindsey, it’s the worse
thing we’ve ever seen. And I said, I know, but what’s your exit strategy? And she said, that’s just it, we don’t have one. I’m working on it now.
And then a few hours later she was killed.
AMANPOUR: Again, in this moment that we are living, we all remember so starkly where we were when we heard that Marie had been killed in 2012, and
now, six years later, you have — so many others have been killed in the last six years trying to do this kind of work, but all of a sudden the
world is focused on Jamal Khashoggi. Because, he wasn’t a war correspondent, but he was taking on and criticizing a very powerful regime,
and again, until we find out exactly what happened to him, we can only assume the worst of what’s been leaked.
But, there is that whole similar attitude that I cannot be silenced. I will not be silence, whether it’s Marie because of the danger, whether it’s
Jamal because of the threats he was getting from the Saudi regime and others, I wonder whether people understand that that’s what they do for
them.
HILSUM: But, I think that the other thing which is really important is that Marie was killed in Syria and James Foley and others, but the majority
of journalist killed in Syria are Syrians, and I think that that is so important, that the majority of journalists under threat all over the world
are under threat from their own governments and from organized criminals.
Today is the anniversary of the killing of Daphne Cauana Galizi. She was a Maltese journalist who was investigating corruption. And she and two other
journalists within the European Union have been killed this year and they are — they’re not in war zones, they’re investigating corruption and
organized crime. And that, it seems to me is this really important, I don’t know if it’s new, but it’s the front in this war on journalists.
AMAPOUR: And I think why this film and your book, at this time, are really, really significant and major reminders of what’s at stake here, not
just for the individuals who are targeted and who lose their lives, but for our very democracies, for our whole idea of what’s truth and what’s lies.
And again about Marie, we had her sister and her lawyer on, Cat and her lawyer, who are convinced that this was not an accident. She was not
killed in any crossfire, that she was in fact targeted, and I interviewed them when they came out with their conclusions in this suit against the
Assad regime and Cat explained to me that she had been talking to Paul Conroy. Let’s just listen to this.
[13:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAT COLVIN, SISTER OF MARIE COLVIN: Really it felt, right from the beginning, like it had to be deliberate. The coincidence of her reporting
out of Homs just the night before she was killed was too much of a coincidence.
But it really hit home when I spoke to Paul Conroy about his knowledge of the artillery fire and how he was absolutely certain that the pattern was
fire was one of targeting, not random bombings as they’d experienced in the weeks leading up to Marie’s murder.
So, I really felt from the outset that is was deliberate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Just say it, go ahead.
PIKE: We say — and we say that in the film. I mean, as we leave the media center in Homs under fire, in the final moments of the film, the Paul
character, played by Jamie Dornan, says to me you know they’re bracketing they found us. And Marie says, what’s that? And he says, they’ve — you
know, they’re measuring the distance and they’re closing in our location. They know exactly where we are.
HILSUM: And in the last chapter of the book I talk about the other evidence and the court case, which is of defectors and spies, there is
quite a lot of evidence.
AMANPOUR: So, do you — you think that this is a solid case?
PIKE: There’s someone who’s actually spoken out.
AMANPOUR: Yes, there are.
HILSUM: Yes.
AMANPOUR: An Intelligence official.
HILSUM: Yes, there’s a lot of — there’s a lot of evidence.
AMANPOUR: Okay, so the next question is, much with the Saudi regime right now, do you think that either Marie’s death or Jamal’s death will result in
the guilty being held accountable?
HISLUM: Oh, I wish I could say yes. I think that I believe that in the end the guilty will be held accountable, but I don’t know how far away the
end is, because right now I feel that journalism is really under threat.
And, I think, that if it is established that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, if it is established that he was murdered for being a journalist and
speaking out, then I really hope that governments and people within Saudi Arabia do react and do something.
AMANPOUR: And can we just point out, that six years after Marie’s death and she was reporting from the very beginning of the war are, it looks like
Assad is on the verge of, not just winning, but being accepted as the winner. And we need to really compute this. We really do need to just
think about it for the moment, because it cost 500,000 lives, at the very least, of Syrians and millions of refugees are — and obviously so more
wounded.
But, I want to play — because this film is called, “A Private War.” So, it’s not just about Marie’s war work, it’s also about her internal war with
herself and she had, as you know and we know, a lot of PTSD, she was a heavy drinker, she had a couple of miscarriages, she had failed marriages,
she had suicide, she had divorce, she had just so much going on in her own life, as she was, nonetheless, conducting this work at a very high level.
And I just want to play Marie accepting an award back in 2000, then Marie talking to Paul in the film when she’s actually at one of the
rehabilitation clinics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLVIN: The pain of war is really beyond telling. I don’t think I’ve filed a story and felt I got it. I really said what I want people to feel,
but I do try and I think whatever the rights and wrongs of a conflict, I feel we fail if we don’t face what war does, face the human horrors rather
than just record who won and who lost.
I fear growing old. And I also fear dying young. I’m most happy with a vodka martini in my hand, but I can’t stand the fact that the chatter in my
head won’t go quite until there’s a quart of vodka inside me.
I hate being in a war zone, but I also feel compelled, compelled to see it for myself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, it’s really real?
[13:40:00] PIKE: Yes, I think — I think in order to — I think Mark and I both felt that in order to really do Marie justice, we needed to go into
the depths of her soul and I think, you know, I’m very, very interested in the cost of doing any job at a high level, whether it’s sport or whether
it’s what you do. And I think, you know, I think it’s a very complicated place for the war correspondent, because I’m sure you must feel when you’re
out there you’re exposed to so much trauma and so much of other people’s pain, there must be a part of you that thinks well why am I feeling,
because it’s not my pain to feel. And yet you must feel, you cannot be exposed to that level of trauma without feeling.
So where on earth does it go? And then you probably feel sort of guilty wrongly for having it haunt you because I think it’s a very complicated
position to occupy, and I think it was very lonely and I’m sure you feel that you should be able just to pull yourself together when you’re back on
—
HILSUM: I think it – but I think it is also – I mean one of the reasons that I call the book “In Extremis” is because it was a quote from Marie,
she said I – what I write about is people, you know, living in extremis and what really happens in war.
But obviously she also lived her own life in extremis, that – that was it. But I suppose I also want to say, because this is all serious stuff, she
was the best company. She was the funniest person. And I say, you know, I used to think of us as the Thelma and Louise of the press corps, you know,
because whenever I, you know, I would be anywhere, Marie would turn up and I’d go well now, you know, I’m going to have fun.
And there was an occasion and we’re not supposed to joke about these things now, but there was an occasion when we were on a stage and a very earnest
young woman got up and said, you know, how do you cope with the trauma? And Marie turns to me and she says well, she says, Lindsey and I, we go to bars
and we drink. And, you know, and – you know –
(LAUGHTER)
AMANPOUR: And that’s, what do we call it, black humor. Rosamund Pike, thank you so much. Lindsey Hilsum, thank you very much. “A Private War”
and “In Extremis”. Marie Colvin, a real reporter and a real flesh and blood person.
And an important note, the Committee to Protect Journalists says 44 reporters have been murdered so far this year, 2018. And today there is a
sad anniversary, it is a year since the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was killed by a car bomb as you heard from Lindsey Hilsum there.
She tirelessly was working to root out corruption in her home country Malta. Despite promising a full investigation, the case is not yet closed,
although three men have been charged with murder.But according to police, the people who actually are suspected of ordering her killing have not yet
been found.
So now we shift to a much needed good news story. It’s about a woman also devoted to her work and how human kind is reaping the benefits of that
work. Dr. Jennifer Doudna took the world by storm when she and her colleagues discovered CRISPR-Cas9, a gene editing tool that could literally
snip diseases out of our DNA. If that’s not impressive enough, she is also the subject of the latest book by our Walter Isaacson, who has previously
detailed the lives of geniuses like Benjamin Franklin, Einstein, Steve Jobs and Leonardo da Vinci.
And Walter sat down with Dr. Doudna to hear how these innovations could change humanity as we know it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER ISAACSON: In 2012, you and Emmanuelle Charpentier and your team created a new tool using something called CRISPR to edit our
genes, you know, our DNA.
For the lay person, explain what CRISPR technology is.
JENNIFER DOUDNA, BIOCHEMIST AND PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Well CRISPR is a technology for altering the DNA in cells, the code of life if
you will.
And it’s based on a bacterial immune system, a way bacteria fight viral infections.
ISAACSON: So CRISPR technology’s almost like a word processing editor where you say OK, I want to change this mistake I’ve made in spelling
throughout the paper, you can do that throughout the human genome?
DOUDNA: I think that’s a great analogy, yes.
ISAACSON: Take me through the sequence of how a CRIPSR-Cas9 system works from the very beginning of it, it’s spotting something to cutting it up,
how does that whole process work?
DOUDNA: So the process of gene editing, using CRISPR-Cas9 begins with the protein Cas-9 grabbing onto a molecule of RNA that is providing the address
code for the protein. And it has a sequence of letters in the RNA that matches a sequence of letters in DNA.
And this system, this protein goes searching through a cell looking, sort of sampling DNA until it finds a match between the RNA molecule and DNA.
And when that match occurs, it works like scissors. It basically cuts the DNA, cuts the double helix and then the cell takes over, recognizes that
the DNA is damaged and repairs it often by introducing a small or sometimes a large change to the DNA sequence.
ISAACSON: And why will that be so transformative?
[13:45:00]
DOUDNA: This is a technology that allows scientists to make a change to the DNA so precise that we can do things like alter a single letter in the
code of a human cell. And that’s something that now gives scientists the power to alter disease-cause mutations in DNA, but also to understand the
genetics of disease in a way that we haven’t been able to in the past.
ISAACSON: And now, what could it be used for, in theory, in humans?
DOUDNA: Well, in humans amazingly it’s already going into clinical trials for cancer patients, where it’s being used to alter the immune system to
target particular tumors. But in the not-too-distant future, I think we’ll see clinical trials for things like sickle cell anemia, for possibly
Duchenne muscular dystrophy. These are well-known diseases that have a single genetic basis that could be, in principle, corrected.
ISAACSON: You’re about to go to the Huntington’s Conference from this interview. Tell me what people who have Huntington’s disease say to you
about what you’re doing?
DOUDNA: So I met a man at one point in my office in Berkley who came to see me because he explained that his grandfather and his father had both
died of Huntington’s disease, and that he had a sister who also had the disease mutation and had not yet succumbed to the disease but knew that
that was in her future.
And it was heartbreaking to talk with him, but it was also very motivating for me because I think that Huntington’s is a disease where there’s a well-
know genetic basis, it occurs in one gene, that’s the type of situation where I think gene editing in the not-too-distant future will have a real
impact, and I’m excited to be working towards the day when we can treat and potentially cure diseases like that.
ISAACSON: Among scientists like yourself, do you feel the — a sense of responsibility to end suffering and disease?
DOUDNA: I would say that all scientists at some level, you know, want to better our world, and — and that includes being able to cure disease or at
least treat disease. And you know, we all I think work towards that goal in different ways. Some scientists are doing it very directly by studying
a disease itself, and others like me are doing more fundamental research that — where we hope that our more wide-ranging curiosity about the world
will lead to unexpected discoveries. Sure —
ISAACSON: And how do you balance, I want to do science that will get — you know, have patents and will be used as tools to cure people, versus
science for its own sake and curiosity?
DOUDNA: Well, I think they go hand-in-hand, in my opinion. I think that, you know, curiosity-driven science drives the process of fundamental
discovery, but of course I think scientists always hope that those discoveries will have real impact on human society.
ISAACSON: At one of the conferences you did on the ethics of it, you were talking about how it would be unethical to try to fix things maybe in the
germline and you were trying to draw the lines, and somebody said, “Well wait a minute, wouldn’t it be unethical not to do that?”
Have your feelings evolved on where the ethical line is?
DOUDNA: They have. I — I think my initial thought about editing the human germline, meaning in — in embryos, you know, I had sort of a — a —
you know, a reaction against that idea. It seemed like it might be — might be very ethically fraught, and I still think, obviously, there are —
there are challenges there.
But I think that, you know, as I’ve become more aware of opportunities to use gene editing to correct disease-causing mutations early in life, I
think that, you know, we have to consider those when we think about the potential to impact human health in the future.
ISAACSON: A single gene correcting a disease or syndrome, that seems morally pretty easy decision to make. Yes, it’s broke, let’s fix it.
Where do you get to a moral question where it gets harder?
DOUDNA: I think it’s harder when we think about making changes that are heritable. You know, that become, you know, embedded in someone’s genome
and are passed on to their children, and that’s the kind of editing that involves what we call the germline. So this is an area where I think
there’s a lot of discussion at the moment about the ethics of that kind of use.
ISAACSON: Give me an example of what type of germline editing could be done 10, 20 years from now?
DOUDNA: Well I — you know, I really (ph) — I think there’s the potential to not only correct disease-causing mutations — I mean, imagine that you
could remove the Huntington’s disease gene from an entire family. I think that’s a very interesting possibility. But also, thinking about ways to,
you know, help people live healthier lives through what I would call almost genetic vaccination. You know, preventing them from getting disease before
they — before they succumb to it.
ISAACSON: Is there a bright line, though, between, you know, preventing a disease and enhancing a human? And should we try to draw that line?
[13:50:00]
DOUDNA: I think the line isn’t very bright. You know, there — there are — there’s sort of gray areas where it might be hard to say is that an
enhancement or is that helping the health of the person. So this is where again these ethical challenges come up.
ISAACSON: Right. And so in some ways that makes the moral dilemma harder, because responsible scientists will say this is complex, I’m not going to
mess with it. But in other places in other countries, people will say hey, come visit us, we will try these enhancements.
DOUDNA: They might, but I think it’ll be very hard to demonstrate that they — they actually work in sort of an animal system, for example. So I
don’t — I don’t see that in the near term.
ISAACSON: But in China, after you led a conference saying let’s not do germline editing — in other words let’s not do things that would be in the
embryo and thus effect every future generation of that organism or that human, then in China they did it. Not in one that would actually carry on,
but they showed they could do it in an embryo.
DOUDNA: Well to be fair, that’s now been done in multiple countries, including in the United States. So that type of research is certainly
going on where people are studying very early human development in viable human embryos. But to be clear, these are not embryos that are intended
for implantation. They’re not meant to create a person. So right now, I think those experiments are in the realm of research.
ISAACSON: They’re not intended to be implanted but once you do it, wouldn’t be that hard to implant it if you were China?
DOUDNA: That’s — that’s correct. So this is again, where, you know, we’re facing a situation where that’s clearly on the horizon.
ISAACSON: And should there be government policy to draw a line?
DOUDNA: I think there should be policies. And the question is how to put those in place and how to enforce them. I think that having a global
community of scientists who establish those policies will be key.
ISAACSON: Are you worried about the administration’s attack on science and the scientific community?
DOUDNA: Well you know, it’s interesting, over the course of my career in science so far, I think there’s been a general — you know, distrust that’s
kind of grown around our country, certainly, of the scientific community and the scientific method. And I’d like to change that. You know, I think
— and I ask myself why has this happened and I think scientists are partly to blame. I think we need to be more involved in public discussion about
what we do and why it matters.
ISAACSON: And what could you do to inspire people that we should fund more basic research?
DOUDNA: Well I think CRISPR is the — is the poster child for that. I think it’s a — you know, it’s a great example of discoveries and
technologies that come from unexpected, curiosity-driven research.
ISAACSON: When did you first become interested in biotechnology?
DOUDNA: Well biotechnology — you know, I’m old enough now that I remember the early days of biotechnology. Probably when I was a early graduate
student in the — you know, in the sort of early 1980s. But going back before that, I got interested in science when I was growing up in a rural
town in Hawaii and I read Jim Watson’s book about the discovery of the structure of DNA.
ISAACSON: Your father I think put the book on your bed when you were in middle school, is that right?
DOUDNA: Correct. Yes. Yes.
ISAACSON: And you thought it was a detective tale and didn’t read it for a while.
DOUDNA: That’s right. And it is a detective tale, actually.
ISAACSON: A detective tale, somebody — two people trying to figure out the structure of DNA.
DOUDNA: Well, multiple people. It was written about, you know, Watson and Crick but of course Rosalind Franklin was a key player in that whole
discovery process as well as other scientists. When I read that book as a middle schooler, what came alive for me was the process of science and how
human an endeavor it really is. Good and bad.
ISAACSON: But then you told your high school guidance counselor, I think, that you wanted to be a scientist. This is in a public high school in
Hilo, Hawaii. What happened?
DOUDNA: Yes, well, he said girls don’t do science. And he didn’t know me very well, because that — that made me think, well this one’s going to.
ISAACSON: Yes. Right, right. Why science? What’s the joy for you of science?
DOUDNA: I love the process of discovery. You know, I think that figuring things out about nature that maybe no one’s ever understood before is very
exciting for me. And I have to say I also really enjoy that process with people. I enjoy working with teams and especially smart young students
that come to the lab and want to figure out new things about the world.
ISAACSON: Jennifer, thanks for being with us.
DOUDNA: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And that is it for our program.
Thank you for watching ‘Amanpour and Company’ on PBS and join us again.
END