Return to Transcripts main page


Internet Companies Under Fire After London Attack; Debate Over Police Resources in Wake of Terror Attack; Police Name Two Of the Three London Attackers; Trump Lashes Out At London's Mayor; Archbishop Of Canterbury On Faith Radicalization; Six Days That Changed The Middle East. Aired 2-3p ET

Aired June 5, 2017 - 14:00   ET


[14:00:00] CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, from the scene of the crime on a rainy, blustery June night. The seven victims and the dozens of

injured who are simply enjoying a Saturday night out are remembered at a vigil here.

An attack on the free world, the words of the prime minister as terrorist strikes the UK for the third time in three months. This hour, our

country's resolve and unity is tested just days before a general election where security is now the big issue. But there is hope, there is

solidarity and even permission to feel some joy again in Manchester.

Ariana Grande returns with her rock and roll friends to raise some help and a lot of money for the victim.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London where behind me you can see the quite streets of the

London Bridge area. Some are still closed off to the public after Saturday night's terror attack.

A few streets away from here, the London mayor has just been holding a vigil for those who are killed and all those severely wounded. Londoners

had been coming here to mourn the seven people who lost their and 36 who remained in hospital with more than half of them in critical condition.

The first of the victims to be named 30-year-old Christine Archibald from Canada. Seen here with her fiance.

We're now hearing from local media that she died in his arms after she was struck by the van that plowed into pedestrians on London bridge.

But amid the great sadness, there is also universal praise and recognition for the police and the emergency services for saving so many lives. Within

just eight minutes of the first phone call, police had race to the scene and shot dead all three attackers. Two of them have now been named -- 27-

year-old Khuram Shazad Butt and 30-year-old Rachid Redouane.

Today, a fierce debate has also arisen over whether deep austerity measures that have cut 20,000 British police officers, that's 15 percent over the

past seven years has left a gaping hole in vital street-level intelligence gathering.

Facing the heat now, Theresa May, after a year as prime minister and six years as home secretary. And it is an issue that is now front and center

of public concern as Britain's prepare to head to the polls in a general election just four days from now.

Our Nic Robertson is outside 10 Downing Street with the latest on the recently revealed identity of the two attackers.

Nic, what do we know beyond their names?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Well, we know that Khuram Shazad Butt was 27 years old. And he was a British national, but

born in Pakistan. Rachid Redouane, 30 years old. He have said that he was Moroccan and Libyan, but the police also say that he had an alias Rachid

Elkhdar, who had claim that he was 25 years old. So at least one of them was operating under an alias.

The police say they are still working to figure out the identity of the third attacker. What we also know that in this investigation, but we don't

know precisely which of the three men this concerns the Irish police and counterterrorism authorities are working closely with the British as part

of the investigation to identify or provide more information about one of the attackers who may have spent Iowa.

So that is another strand of the investigation. It takes the investigation a little bit outside of Britain. So at the moment, the police are saying

the two men never identified live in the East of London. That's perhaps no surprise it's because we know that's where the majority of the search is

and arrest so far had been. But at the moment priority it seems to get the name and the identity of the third attacker, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: And just very quickly, with all these arrest and we understand there probably about 10 people still in custody including women, have they

determine whether there is a bigger group around them, whether it's more of a conspiracy than perhaps they might have thought.

ROBERTSON: You know, the press sort of take the lead police commissioner was asked that question. She refused to comment specifically on this case.

But she did say that the three attacks that have gone, that have taken place in the last 11 weeks and the five plotted attacks that had been

thwarted, they've mostly not had direction from outside.

It's not clear if she was implying that in this particular case there wasn't direct from outside. But we know ISIS claim that's part of their

propaganda that this was one of their attacks, but they've offered absolutely no proof of that. So at the moment, the indication in these

eight thwarted attacks that have happened according to Cressida Dick, the MET police commissioner.

Mostly it's look -- they are looking at an issue, a terror threat issue that comes from within the UK, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: All right, Nic, thank you.

So after those attacks, the British Prime Minister Theresa May said that when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism, things need to change.

She said enough is enough. The question now is just how?

Richard Barrett had a 30 years career with the British government. He's the former head of Global Counterterrorism Operations for MI-6 and now

director of the Global Strategy Network and joins me here, live, on this really inclement evening.

Perhaps sort of epitomizing the turbulence in the intelligence, in the police and in really trying to figure out how to deal with this.

We heard Cressida Dick saying they don't believe this was directed from outside. Is that worse or better for trying to figure out what's going on.

RICHARD BARRETT, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL STRATEGY NETWORK: Well, I think it's worse, actually. But it's much harder to find out what's going on with

small groups in this country than with groups maybe traveling abroad or communicating with this people.

I think we have to remember also that we've been told that the security services are looking at 500 live cases at the moment involving some three

thousand people. You know that is beyond 20,000 additional people who are also subject of interest. So the task is absolutely enormous.

Mixed in with those people. Of course people had been out to Syria, they've got training and so on like someone.

AMANPOUR: So when you look at this and you see, first of all, maybe you can tell us, why do you think Britain, the United Kingdom escape terrorism,

you know, since 7/7 by in large.

I know we talk about lots have thwarted, but all of a sudden, three that have gotten through in rapid succession.

BARRETT: I think that's a matter of luck and a bad luck. You know, I think before hand everyone was saying that director of security service and

everybody else is saying an attack is almost inevitable. But they were able to stop some.

They stopped, I believe, about six now this year already. Five since March alone. And, you know, we all expect that something to get through once.

What's really frightening is that three attacks had been happening in such short succession.

AMANPOUR: And different ones. I mean, two of them were the same. Vehicles and knife. One of them a suicide bomber, more sophisticated.

What does that tell you. That tide, you know, of sort of kitchen terrorism, a vehicle and a knife.

BARRETT: Yes. That is really a problem, isn't it? Because you can use an everyday instrument as an instrument of murder then. You know it's a big

problem. There's a lot of those things around. You know, vans, knife and so on. So we can't stop that.

I think it's more on the Manchester attack by Salman Abedi, where he clearly did have some sort of knowledge of bomb making and so on and set

out to kill a great many people. Both Khalid Masood in Westminster Bridge and now these three people here in London Bridge, of course, we must have

expected not been able to kill too many before they got kill themselves. But nonetheless, it is, you know, a frightening thing for people but at the

same time life goes on.

AMANPOUR: Well, life does carry on. But how long can a civil society, how long can a democracy carry on saying well, you know, we are really lucky.

Most of them didn't get through. That we've got 500 people on working, but 20,000 people who maybe on some kind of list somewhere and we can't -- we

can't look at them all. We can't examine them all. At some point, something has got to change.

BARRETT: Well, yes, something has got to change. But as you said earlier, what is it? What is it?

AMANPOUR: Well, I ask you because right now this is a massive debate over resources. Cressida Dick said that while you cannot predict, you cannot

prevent all of this, it's going to reopen a question and a conversation about our level of resources. And a lot of people had been saying that.

The prime minister disagreed.

BARRETT: The police counterterrorism unit and the security service, the intelligence services and so on have been assured of more resources. I

think that problem is in recruiting and absorbing them and training them up and so on. There's nothing in getting more money to have them.

AMANPOUR: But you don't think this sort of, as I said, alluded to this sort of street level intelligence gathering cops, the beat (ph) cops. You

know, 20,000 of them over the last seven years had been act.

BARRETT: Indeed, indeed. And I think you make a good point. I think that's an enormously important part of policing to be in touch with the

community on a daily basis like that. We involved with the community.

But then we also understand that at least three of the people in the five people involved in attacks since March (INAUDIBLE) through the police.

AMANPOUR: Well, that's my next question. So what? Not only do we not have enough people to figure out who is being reported, we don't even have

people apparently taking up the communities reporting of some of their suspicious.

BARRETT: Yes, and indeed we don't know what happened to those reports. We don't know how they were created and we don't know how they quickly then

though lots of other reports that were made, because I think that for everyone who got through, there must be many, many who have stop, you know,

they have dealt with their talk. They are told to act down a bit.

[14:10:00] AMANPOUR: And now are they after actions report. In this case, the guy has not blown up. These three people, their bullet-ridden bodies

are available. Does one do a post study from now all the way back 20 years. And they are particularly older this lot, aren't they?

BARRETT: You know, 27 and 30, the two of them who had been name so far. They are sort of slightly older than you would expect. But I'm absolutely

sure you are right.

The key thing in all this runs down, what led this people to do this horrific things. You know, here's (INAUDIBLE), for example, who has two

young children, 3-year-old and a baby, you know,

So why would they suddenly go and do this. And I think that one can see in many reasons why people get radicalized. It's a cross over that line to

murder and something else.

So the more information we gather about what leaves people to these acts of terrorism, then I think the better able we may be to design better

preventive policies.

AMANPOUR: Richard Barrett, thank you so much indeed for joining us. Thank you very much.

And coming up, Theresa May says Internet giants need to stop providing, quote, "safe spaces" for extremist online. But how can the Internet be

regulated? We'll discuss after the break.


AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program, live, where you can see people yet again have come out in tears and laying flowers for what happened on

Saturday night, what happened in Manchester just two weeks ago.

Theresa May has called on Internet companies now to do more to tackle extremism online. The British prime minister said tech giants cannot

continue to provide safe spaces for extremist ideologies and she called for international cooperation.


THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We need to work with allied democratic governments, to reach international agreements that regulate

cyberspace, to prevent the spread of extremist and terrorism planning. And we need to do everything we can at home to reduce the risk of extremism



AMANPOUR: Facebook, Twitter and Google have all rush to defend their policies and said they are working aggressively to counter the spread of

terrorism online.

Now CNN Samuel Burke has been monitoring the investigation into the attack the response from social media companies.

He joins me now from Scotland Yard.

And you are also, obviously, our tech correspondent.

What are the Internet companies saying in response to Theresa May's call?

SAMUEL BURKE, CNN TECH CORRESPONDENT: Well, Christiane, to understand this in the clearest way possible, you had to divide this into two categories.

Number one, the social media companies like Facebook, like Twitter. They have actually cave to the pressure from politicians, from their users and

from investors which is a good thing.

They know that if you let your terrorist, if you let your platform become a terrorist hot bed, they are going to pull out the money from under you.

And so what they have done is actually very simple and it's been very effective. They've worked with more terrorism experts and hired more

employees, Christiane, and they have gotten rid of lots, not all, but lots of the terrorist content and the extremist.

[14:15:15] But what's that had the effect of is moving these extremist over to the encrypted messaging platforms and that's really what's key here.

Encrypted messaging means you can only see the message if you have access to the phone that sends it and the phone that received it.

So what the politicians always say they are going to do, but never follow through on is demand a back door.

Think of a back door, Christiane, like a master key that the UK government had to get into the back door at every flat here in London. But once that

key gets lost, then it can get in. And the proof is in the pudding.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I was reporting on that cyber attack called "WannaCry." That was a backdoor that the U.S. government used to get into

Windows. It feel into the wrong hands and you saw what happened.

So at the end of the day, these politicians like Theresa May have to decide, are they going to push legislation that requires a backdoor and

when they do and the tech companies don't give it to them which most experts think they won't, will they then say that's it. these apps that

are encrypted are ban here just the way countries like China do.

AMANPOUR: Samuel, thank you so much. And there's so much to discuss around this.

Joining me now from Paris is an expert to regulate cyberspace, the French lawyer Dan Shefet. He specializes in data privacy and human rights on the

Internet and he wrote a report for UNESCO recently on how to tackle the spread of extremist material online.

Mr. Shefet, welcome to the program. And, of course, you are working on the continent and over there you've had even more terrorism over the last two

years than here in London.

But can you really make headway given the complexities of where these online giants are headquartered in America and what laws are around them,

first and foremost.

DAN SHEFET, FOUNDER, ASSOCIATION FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND INTERNET DEMOCRACY: Well, thank you for inviting me to your show, Christiane.

First, the questions that you are raising here is one of the most complicated in IT law today, which is rarely jurisdiction. Which is can we

on the continent in France, in the UK and so on, can we really impose restrictions and regulation on the Internet that will be efficient

worldwide. That's the question of global reach. That's the question of territorial reality.

And that particular question essentially today is a jurisdiction of clash so to speak between our European culture and the First Amendment culture in

the U.S.

AMANPOUR: So how does on break through that, if one can and if you think it's right. I mean, what do you think needs to happen. What do you

envision as a way to deny this people their safe spaces and particularly inhabiting the darkness.

SHEFET: OK. Well, the main problem as alluded it before is that the Internet is universal. It's essentially universal. And regulation which

is limited to one jurisdiction has no really fit.

So the first problem that we need to deal with and that is probably also what Theresa May alluded to when she talked about treaty cooperation is a

cooperation with the U.S. on the so called Communications Decency Act, which in 230c grants complete immunity to the IT sector.

Now that means that there's no accountability on the part of the Internet service providers, the search engines, the social media and so on.

And that is really what compares to what we have in Europe which is relative immunity based on this E-Commerce Directive of the European Union.

So the first thing we need to do is to get together with American policy makers and find a way, where we can all agree on a consensual basis for a

common accountability platform that we can apply in Europe that they can apply in the U.S. and that will ultimately be of the interest of the

Internet giant so to speak because they can under the legal uncertainty are being subject to laws in the U.S. that are basically different from the

laws in Europe.

AMANPOUR: Dan, what sometimes baffles me is obviously these companies talk about the First Amendment that you've just been mentioning, the Freedom of

expression, etcetera. But what we are talking about is activity that is prescribed by law. This is illegal activity.

So can they claim First Amendment protections for this kind of illegal incitement, recruitment to terrorism?

SHEFET: Well, you know, the interesting thing is that the First Amendment as we all know is a constitutional last defense. The first defense that

they raise is the law that I mentioned before the Communications Decency Act.

[14:20:00] Now there are two, actually, there are three very interesting cases here that I with mentioned, two case against Facebook and one case

against Twitter, where the victims of terrorist attacks in the different countries in the world actually brought cases before U.S. courts trying to

obtain damages from these two companies in spite of the Communications Decency Act and in spite of the First Amendment.

By reference to the Anti-Terrorist Act in the U.S. which actually makes -- create a certain stand of liability for what is called material support.

In other words, if these Internet giants lend their infrastructure to be use by terrorist organizations which is what allegedly Twitter, Facebook

and Google sometimes does, and I'm not saying that they deliberately do that, but they are charge for doing that, well, maybe that material support

will override the protection of the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act. So far these cases had been lost, but right now there's a new



AMANPOUR: OK, I'm sorry. We're really at the mercy of the elements here. But I wanted to ask you, you know, some people are saying that what Theresa

May is saying is the year 2014. This idea of pulling things down. Everybody has gone way ahead of that.

There's encryption from end to end, Telegram, What'sApp, all these things that are even, you know, way beyond the ordinary sort of platforms online.

How complicating is that?

SHEFET: Well, of course, encryption is a major problem. And the argument for encryption, we know that very well, is that in some repressive regimes,

people actually bring freedom of speech and allow maybe to topple those freedom, those repressive regimes to have the capability of encrypted

communication. That's the justification for encryption. But I'm sorry that's not really the problem that we face in Europe and in most of America

today. In our jurisdictions, that doesn't really seem to be a valid justification.

We all remember the San Bernardino case when Apple stood up vigorously and fought on not being obliged to crack the encrypted messages. And we see

the same. What happened with What'sApp and Telegram and the others that you mentioned.

I think that the argument and the legal basis that Theresa May should fight for here is an analogy of product liability. In other words, when you put

a product on the market, which in this particular case is encrypted communication capability. You are liable for the use that's made of their


AMANPOUR: A problem from hell. Let's hope it can be solve in some way. Dan Shefet, thank you so much indeed for joining me on this vital online

issue from Paris.

And still ahead, does London have the police resources it needs to prevent the next attack?

A former chief superintendent for the metropolitan police weighs in, next.


[14:25:30] AMANPOUR: The issue of whether or not the U.K. has sufficient security resources has taken on a whole new light, especially ahead of the

general election on Thursday.

Prime Minister Theresa May has been criticized by some for reducing the number of police officers. I spoke with the former chief superintendent of

the Metropolitan Police Dal Babu to get his take.


Mr. Babu, welcome to the program. You are, of course, ex-chief superintendent.

Thank you.

And yesterday in the aftermath of the attack, you were talking to me about the desperate need for more police on the beat. And this is now flourished

into a massive debate. Do you still stand by that even though the prime minister says there are plenty of police on the beat?

DAL BABU, FORMER CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT LONDON METROPILITAN POLICE: Oh, absolutely. I mean, you're absolutely right. The debate has moved on to


We've actually had the army, unprecedented, in sort of modern democracy to have the army come in and strike police. And we've also had a situation

where police officers themselves now and the trucks of the ex-chief comes to the British police who have actually come out and said that your

resources are quite restricted.

So I think what we need to be doing is taking a hard look at the 15 percent reduction in policing, which is at 20,000 police over the last police

officers that we had five years ago. And look at what impact that potentially has on gathering information.

Ultimately, it's the public that are going to solve this issue of terrorism. They will provide us with information. They will provide us

with intelligence. And we need to have our police officers on the ground who are able to speak to them. It is disingenuous to talk about increasing

counterterrorism resources.

AMANPOUR: Lord Carlisle and others have been talking about control orders. This system that was introduced, I believe, more than a decade ago or so,

and that has certain restrictive possibilities.

Can you please explain to me what that is and whether that would be useful to reintroduce?

BABU: I think we need to have a debate. I mean, we're hearing numbers of many thousands of potentially of danger to us. No, it's not number that's

correct, then one of the ways of dealing with those individuals is control orders which restrict people to use the Internet and restricts the use of

mobile phones. It has curfews on them.

This is about keeping the state and we need to explore all of these issues. But we need to do it with the full openness and transparency, opinion and

democracy. And make sure that we don't fall into the trap of becoming the kind of state that's Daesh or so called ISIS would like us to be.

AMANPOUR: How does one break the back of this thing, this perversion that has metastasize and now, you know, three in the last three months.

BABU: Well, you're right, it is a perversion. But, you know, it's not like when you see films about counterterrorism being, very, very

sophisticated people talking around, looking at bombs or what have you. This is basically do-it-yourself terrorism. It's a very bug standard,

basic items are being use.

You know a car has been used. A van has been used. Knives had been used from the kitchen. So we need to look at how we best deal with bug

standard. Very, very dangerous and home-made terrorism, which isn't necessary sophisticated networks, you know.

So certainly West Minster, three months ago, we had an individual hired a car, got a couple of kitchen knives and then went on a rampage on his own.

So we need to be looking at how you know if it's working and how we can rest off it.

But the key to all of this is a bad community intelligence. That's where it starts and that's where it ends. We've got to have the confidence of

the community to come forward and share our intelligence with us.

AMANPOUR: Thank you so much for joining us, former chief superintendent with the Metropolitan Police.

BABU: Thank you.


AMANPOUR: And coming up, faith and fear.

Earlier today I sat down with the head of the British church here, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby His thoughts on what communities of

all faith need to do to combat radicalization. That's next.


[14:32:03] AMANPOUR: Welcome back. The picture of Christine Archibald of Canada along with her fiance we believe right there, the first of those who

are killed who have been named. And of course, behind me, you see the London Bridge area. This is still a police cordon zone, there's virtually

no movement behind me, beyond there is where the attacks took place. And of course, there is the iconic London Shard building two. This needle of

glass that is symptomatic of this new redevelopment of the embankment area near Borough Market where so many people came out and do come out on a

nightly and daily basis to enjoy themselves in which on Saturday into a war zone.

British Police have named two of the three men behind the Saturday night terrorist attacks. They are 27-year-old Khuram Shazad Butt and 30-year old

Rachid Redouane. Butt was a British citizen who was born in Pakistan, and police say he was familiar to both them and to MI5, the domestic

intelligence agency. But there was no intelligence to suggest the weekend attack was being planned. Redouane is said to also use the name Rachid

Elkhdar and he had claimed Moroccan and Libyan heritage. Police have carried out a number of raids since Saturday's attack and say there are at

least ten people in custody. The attack has stirred up some bad blood between the London Mayor Sadiq Khan and the U.S. President Donald Trump.

In the hours after the attack, the Mayor said this.


SADIQ KHAN, LONDON MAYOR: Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed.

One of the things the police, all of us need to do is make sure we're as safe as we possibly can be -


Now for some reason, President Trump didn't like that and he tweeted at least seven dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says

there is no reason to be alarmed. The Mayor stopped and responded quote, "he has more important things to do than respond to Donald Trump's ill-

informed tweets that deliberately takes out of context his remarks urging Londoners not to be alarmed when they saw more police - including armed

officers to keep them safe on the streets." But wait there is more. Mr. Trump double down hissing back calling the statement quote, "a pathetic

excuse and that the mainstream media is working hard to sell it." This is an extraordinary situation and as one European Leader has said, imagine if

any European or foreign leader had this, the Mayor of New York in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. CNN Politics Producer Dan Merica joins us now

from Washington with the closer look. Dan, you've been listening to the press briefing, did all of these come up?

DAN MERICA, CNN POLITICS PRODUCER: Hi Christiane! Not yet. But wait, there's more, more. I mean, this has been an unfolding situation since

this morning and if you would have told me when I woke up this morning if we're going to be talking about a fight between the Mayor of London and the

- and the President of the United States, I would have - I would have been shocked.

[14:35:09] But that is what has been unfolding here at the White House during week where it seems like everything is building towards Thursday's

Senate Intelligence Committee meeting with James Comey. But right now, the White House is having to respond to whether Donald Trump was picking a

fight with Mayor Khan and they say no. They said he was not - he was just pointing out the fact that he thinks people should be alarmed, should be

worried but disagreeing with the fact that he was even taking the mayor out of context in the first place. Listen to what Sarah Huckabee Sanders said

just moments ago in the White House Press Briefing.


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: I don't see that the President is picking a fight with the Mayor of London and all. I

think, again, the President's point is something he said frankly back almost two years now -- a year and a half ago -- when the President talked

about how we have to be more committed to national security. One of the reasons we have the travel ban here through that executive order is a focus

on national security. That was the point he was trying to make.


MERICA: What's remarkable to all of this is that's coming through Twitter which is obviously Donald Trump's favorite platform. He has used it

throughout the campaign and even here in the White House. A number of aids will say let's not pay as much attention to Donald Trump's Twitter account,

what he is saying on Twitter. But it's very clear here at the White House that what he is saying on Twitter is the purest distillation of who he is

as President and what he is thinking. He watches the news in the morning and then regularly tweet about what he has seen and we're seeing how - that

doesn't just cause questions and strife here in the United States but has now led to an international incident between the Mayor of London and the

President of the United States.

AMANPOUR: And Dan, that's only the beginning of it. The international you know, partners are actually reacting to this huge amount of consternation.

Ever since the trip, the President's first foreign trip then pulling out suddenly like that of the Climate Accords, and there's a huge amount of

questions now whether there is some method to the madness or whether it's one or the other. Dan Merica, thank you so much.

Now, the Archbishop of Canterbury says that people should not let the attack divide the society. Justin Welby said that all faith have their own

elements of radicalization to root out. He attended the vigil that's been held here in London this evening to remember the victims. And I spoke with

him at his official residence Lambeth of Palace beforehand.


AMANPOUR: Archbishop welcome.


AMANPOUR: Here we sit again after a terrible, terrible attack on ordinary civilian here in the United Kingdoms. It's the third in three months. How

does this not tear the fabric of society apart? How does this add suspicion between communities?

WELBY: Well, it could do. There's no question it could do. It's a very significant danger. And that, of course, is the aim of the terrorist. And

the --- as I said before, any attack on Muslims in any way following the recent events is simply saying to the terrorist, all right, you've won. I

think that if you look around, I mean, you know this country very well. You, if you look around, you do not see signs of a country in panic and

alarmed and being torn apart.

AMANPOUR: It is obviously three or four days before an election and frankly both party leaders, the main party leaders are you could say

playing politics with this issue. Both are talking about police presence. Both are talking about you know, enough is enough, you know, evil Islamist

ideology. I'm not sure if I heard of British leaders used those same words as the Americans have before.

WELBY: I think the word ideology is a very important word. The issue we're facing is an ideological one. It's a view of the world of how the

world works and how it should work. That's based theologically and has within it an evil and entirely wrong justification for violence. We need

hardened security, that's quite clear. We need interventions that counter- radicalization. We have a big program in the church called new neighbors running across the country, very successful, very effective, funded by the

government. But we also need this long term, this global, this generation, this ideological, theological struggle within faith communities to make

radicalization something completely absurd.

[14:39:55] I mean, you're at Lambeth Palace today. When you came in a little while ago, you walked passed a tree planted in 1556 by a Roman

Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, the last one Cardinal Pole to celebrate burning his predecessor to death. Now, let's not pretend that our own

faith as Christians, my own faith as a Christian doesn't have its very dark history. But we learned a new way of looking at things which makes that

extreme approach completely unthinkable. That is what has to happen in all major faith traditions and we need to keep on learning it. It's still

there in some groups.

AMANPOUR: There's a lot of commentary right now, you know, all these attacks then we have the predictable outrage and the solidarity and the

candles and the vigils and then it happens again. And is it - it's a like we're being groomed to accept this. This is our new normal.

WELBY: I think we (INAUDIBLE) saw it as new normal, that would be terrible mistake. There is nothing normal about murdering innocent people on a

night out. It's profoundly evil. But if we allow it to shape the whole future of our society, that is an equally serious mistake. There need to

be a certain stoicism, a certain saying this is absolutely unacceptable every effort will be made to stop it. But we are not going to throw away

all that we have, all the values we have. We are actually going to reaffirm our values and make them clearer. We're going to be more

generous, more hospitable, more accepting but not foolishly moral.

AMANPOUR: So just finally do you believe as the Prime Minister said that here has been far too much tolerance of this extremism in the U.K. for far

too long. And I guess the joint question is, is there something wrong with integration or -

WELBY: I think that we are finding that a secularized materialistic model of integration lacks the strength to carry the weight of dealing with

different faith communities. And that we need to a very decisive re-look at how we integrate. And what are the clear values within which you are

free to do and say what you like and beyond which there is no tolerance of doing and saying what you like?

AMANPOUR: Archbishop Justin Welby, thank you very much indeed.

WELBY: Thank you very much.


AMANPOUR: Extremism plagues the Middle East where 50 years ago today, Israel caused a devastating attack against his Arab neighbors. Coming up,

war and occupation, the complicated legacy of the six-day war.


[14:44:55] AMANPOUR: Welcome back. The Archbishop of Canterbury told me that without peace in the Middle East, this kind of terrorism is going to

continue. Now, 50 years ago today, on June 5, 1967, when Israel responded to threatening moves by its Arab neighbors, it launched a punishing

assault. And in just six days, it captured land in East Jerusalem, the West Bank-Gaza. Territories that had been hot benefit of tension and resistance

ever since. CNN Oren Liebermann looks at how the fallout from the Six-Day War still impacts our world.


OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: (INAUDIBLE) in Jerusalem saw some of the fiercest fightings. Yaakov Hetz was there, a young paratrooper.

YAAKOV HETZ, RETIRED IDF PARATROOPER: When you are in the trench, the only thing that interest you is to survive and I was kind of a surviving


LIEBERMANN: This is what it looks like now Tramline runs down the hill, down the seemed dividing east and west. All war traces of the border are

gone then looked different.

When Israeli troops crossed in the East Jerusalem, they were crossing in the territory controlled by Jordan which had assumed control after Israel

(INAUDIBLE) independence 19 years earlier.

NOURA CARMY, JERUSALEM RESIDENT: I was born in Jerusalem-Palestine. I grew up in Jerusalem-Jordan, and since 1967, I'm a residence of occupied


LIEBERMANN: Noura Carmy remembers the fighting like it was yesterday.

CARMY: The shock of walking to Damascus gate with Israeli soldier all around us, this is something I can never forget.

LIEBERMANN: As they came through this line gate's entrance, Israeli army was just a few hundred meters away from its ultimate price, and that was

the Western Wall.

HETZ: It took me several years to realize what we did and of course now we are very proud that they (INAUDIBLE) we had the chance to free Jerusalem

and to unite Jerusalem.

LIEBERMANN: For the city's Palestinian residence, as Sari Nusseibeh recalls, it was obvious, things would never be the same.

SARI NUSSEIBEH, AL-QUDS UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: When we discovered that Arab armies have lost and so swiftly and quickly there was great sense of shock

and disbelief.

LIEBERMANN: The war lasted just six days. To Israel, the result was momentous. Territories seized from Egypt, from Syria and from Jordan and

all of Jerusalem under his control.

In the summer merely after the war -

LIEBERMANN: Former Israeli Diplomat and Historian Michael Oren has an unusual spin.

MICHAEL OREN, FORMER ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: In the Six-Day War for the first time reunites the three largest centers of Palestinian

population under one governance, and that's Israel. And so the Palestinians from the West Bank the meet the Palestinians from Gaza and it

creates a tremendous infusion of Palestinian identity that didn't exist before them. So in a very strange way, the Palestinian are one of the big

winners of the Six-Day War.

LIEBERMANN: The Palestinians certainly wouldn't see it like that.

OREN: Well, they should. I think that it's only in the aftermath of the Six-Day War that the world begins to recognize that Palestinians have

aspirations to stay put.

LIEBERMANN: Nusseibeh sees the legacy of the war differently. A Six-Day war that led to intractable 50-year conflict.

NUSSEIBEH: The Six-Day War basically created the problem for each side for our side because it has become very hard to create an independent state as

Palestinians. And for them, it has become very hard to create a Jewish democratic state.

LIEBERMANN: Jerusalem only they Christians, Muslims and Jews has become so often a place of division rather than unity. Stories of this past, the

status of its present, and decisions about its future, all caught up in the conflict with the city at its center. Orem Liebermann, CNN Jerusalem.


AMANPOUR: 50 years ago, it was (INAUDIBLE) little Israel that fended off all those Arab states, and today as you heard, still no peace 50 years

later. Dorit Rabinyan is an Israeli novelist with a unique perspective. A book All The Rivers is a story of a love affair between an Israeli woman

and a Palestinian man but it was banned from Israel's high school curriculum by the Ministry of Education. It called the book a threat to

Israel's national identity. I spoke to her earlier today.


AMANPOUR: Dorit Rabinyan, welcome to the program.

DORIT RABINYAN, ISRAELI NOVELIST: Hello Christiane, thank you so much for having me and good to be here.

AMANPOUR: I'm going to get to your book in a second and your very intimate story about both sides but given the attacks here, how do you relate as an

Israeli as you watching all this unfold?

[14:49:45] RABINYAN: I feel I'm too equipped to answer this - I'm overqualified. We in my generation, we were brought out with this

atmosphere. I just came back from a tour in the U.K. and I felt so much the echoes of my memories being reflected from my leadership. And in

England and in Ireland and I felt so unwillingly close with our experience nowadays that you face terror in a way that we were brought up with this

climate of terror. And I cannot show any - my only tool is -- my only gesture is empathy.

AMANPOUR: Which is a beautiful way to get into your story because it is about empathy and it is about that empathy that's the most intimate. Tell

me about your relationship with the Palestinian, how you came to write this book, and what you were trying to say, not just as a fiction or as a story

but as a reflection of the world you live in?

RABINYAN: OK. This notorious book of mine that became a major cause for a scandal in Israel politics because of being banned from the - by the

Ministry of Education from the high school curriculum was actually written as a very intimate letter for somebody I knew back then I was living in New

York. In Brooklyn, I get to meet a very inspiring group of Palestinian intellectuals, scholars, and artists. And among them, there was a very

unique person that I got close to. This closeness was very much of a revelation for both sides, Palestinians and Israelis who come to meet

overseas, experience some sort of superpower encounter of getting to know the boy or the girl from the next door that you have never got to see, got

to look in an equal ground, in a more respectful environment. And to really explore one another.

AMANPOUR: And given that it has such a power and that almost you had to be transplanted Israelis and Palestinians to understand the deep connection

that you have as people, why on earth was it banned?

RABINYAN: Because it was considered to be a danger to the young Israeli leaders nowadays that empathy is being radicalized by the current regime.

Netanyahu had made empathy identification, crossing your own skin, and wearing the other's perspective even for a short while as reading a novel,

tasting what it is to be somebody else is considered nowadays Israel to be a radical act, so the Ministry of Education had found my book to be a

danger to the young readers in Israel.

AMANPOUR: You know, in the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, and obviously, that was a matter of great heroism in Israel, great military

accomplishment, but of course, it's led to 50 years of occupation, and sadly, still no peace. How do you reflect on -- how do you mark the

anniversary of the Six-Day War and the Israeli victory?

RABINYAN: Oh, we've become so victorious that we've been paying for 50 years of conflict being so ongoing violent, ongoing -- despairing any hope.

This no hope situation that has been going on for so long, both in the Palestinian side and both in the Israeli side is being filled -- this void

is being filled with extremers with fundamentalist powers who trying to shift Israel's portrait as much as our neighbors.

AMANPOUR: And what is the status, the fate of your Palestinian friend, the subject of this book?

RABINYAN: I'm sorry to reveal the ending of my novel, but it's not - it's not a very happy one. But yet, it goes through a relationship that is most

significant and it has an echo that I received letters from both Israelis and Palestinians define both (INAUDIBLE) those young lovers who get to meet

in New York to be reflective of both the flesh and blood of the nowadays Israeli and Palestinian identity.

AMANPOUR: Dorit, thank you. That's a really great way to end the - you getting, you know, reaction from both sides of that divide, and we really

hope that it's not another 50 years of war between your two nations there. Dorit Rabinyan, thank you so much.

RABINYAN: Thank you so much for this prayer.


[14:54:48] AMANPOUR: Now after a break, we leave London and we head up north to imagine the music lifting a nation. That is next. But first, a

tragic reminder of the May 22nd Manchester concert attack where 22 were killed. Today, the body of 14-year-old girl killed in the attack was

repatriated to her home in the Scottish Outer Hebrides. 50 people from the small community on the Island of Barra. We're at the airport to welcome

her before the funeral.


AMANPOUR: And finally tonight after the weekend attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market behind the police cordon behind me. Britain once again

found itself badly wounded. Bloody, though, but unbowed. Less than 24 hours later, imagine a mass healing rising from the symphony of pop music,

brought together by the teen sensation, Ariana Grande, and friends like The Black Eyed Peas.

This was a concert for Manchester which have been targeted by terror just two weeks ago at Ariana's concert that killed 22 people including young

kids. Now, the 23-year-old singer was coming back in solidarity with that city and this one. The show itself was transformed last minute after

Grande met with the mother of the 15-year-old Manchester victim, Olivia Campbell.


ARIANA GRANDE, SINGER: I had the pleasure of meeting Olivia's mommy a few days ago. And as soon as I met her, I started crying, I gave her a big

hug, and she said that I should stop crying because Olivia wouldn't have wanted me to cry. And then she told me that Olivia would have wanted to

hear the hits.


AMANPOUR: And so, for three hours, all traffic-crooked ground filled with chart-busting pop that brought smiles back to these faces and allowed them

to forget for just a short while, the terror that they had survived. 50,000 people crammed into the venue with free tickets given to the 14,000

who had attended Ariana's doomed concert. It was the perfect rebuttal to those who would sow fear and division. As musicians, not politicians led

the way.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Instead of be and all scared to come here, people are not coming, we need to just stick together and actually not be scared about

things because I feel, like, whoever is doing this want us to be scared of getting out of the house and walking about. I think we need to try and be

as normal as possible and just not have that panic about (INAUDIBLE) just not have panic or anything.


AMANPOUR: Words for Manchester, words for London. And that is it for our program tonight. Thanks for watching and goodbye from near London Bridge.