FOX News - Glenn Beck Show - What Did Congress Know About Interrogation Techniques?
What did members of Congress - including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - know about interrogation techniques? It's a question that was discussed on the Glenn Beck Show with ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow.
You can watch the interview here.
You can read a transcript of the interview below:
GLENN BECK:
Nancy Pelosi. I would like her to start saying what she means and mean what she says. I mean, I want you to listen to her claims about what she was told about enhanced interrogation techniques with the Obama administration that the Obama administration just banned. Watch this. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We were not, I repeat, we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. They could be used, but not that they would. If they tell you one thing, they may mean something else.
My experience was they did not tell us they were using that, flat out. They don't come in to consult. They come in to notify. They come in to notify, and you can't change what they're doing unless you can act as a committee or as a class. You can't change what they're doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: You could speak out against it. And if they said, "We could set you on fire," is there really a difference on what you should do? Let's say, well, they just said they might set me on fire. They didn't say they were setting me on fire. I think you should speak out either way if you're against being set on fire.
Jay Sekulow - he is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay just filed a Freedom of Information Act request. You were on the show - when was it, last week or the week before?
SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Last week.
BECK: Yes. Please, can somebody file it? And you said you would. How difficult is that?
SEKULOW: It's filed.
BECK: OK.
SEKULOW: Well, it is difficult in the sense, Glenn, that you've got to - there is a number of agencies involved here. This Freedom of Information Act request has gone to the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the National Security Administration, the CIA. There are memorandums that go with it, all of which have been filed.
And I'm glad you played that clip again because when you listen to the words, you don't have to be a Supreme Court lawyer ...
BECK: No.
SEKULOW: ... to figure out that there is a difference between lawyers coming in and saying to you, "This is what we have the legal authority to do," and you not saying, if you really objected, "Well, I wish you not do that, but we'll find out.
At least the - if the Freedom of Information Act requests are in, if they do not respond to these - they have to respond in some way, either yes or no. If they respond with no, we'll go to federal court on it. That would be the next step.
BECK: All right. So Jay, here is the thing. I mean this sincerely - where is Sandy Berger? The last time we had the 9/11 commission, Sandy Berger just goes into the National Archives and stuffs documents relating to 9/11 in his underpants, and then hides them across the street in a construction zone, and then just has his security permits - you know, his security clearance taken away for a couple of years and no big deal. These documents are going to disappear, don't you think? I mean, is there any way these documents show up?
SEKULOW: I think they might. And I'll tell you why I think they might, Glenn, and that's because of some of the things you've done in this broadcast. You brought this to light.
And let me say this, what I'm hearing is that there are professionals - lawyers and other public policy professionals inside the CIA and the Department of State and the Department of Defense, that are really upset with the Obama administration for not only threatening to bring them into legal challenges, to bring lawyers before a grand jury, but also the releasing of the memos they released on the enhanced interrogation techniques.
And I will bet that there are lawyers that will make sure these documents don't go anywhere. And of course, in discovery, we'll find all that out if it goes to that level. But the fact of the matter is I think they've got to be really careful right now with the media attention you are putting on this.
To start playing with these documents, trying to remove these documents would not only be illegal. It would be exposed in a very significant way. And I think Nancy Pelosi is going to have a lot of explaining to do anyway.
BECK: Can't they just say no, we're not going to give them to you?
SEKULOW: They can say that, but I will tell you this - the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia, in litigation also that has been instituted in other contexts with Freedom of Information Act requests have said these kind of documents should be released. And the fact that they released the enhanced interrogation technique memos or they're calling the torture memos, and have threatened to take the Department or Justice lawyers to court - and I'm talking - they threatened criminal investigations against leadership within the Department of Justice. That job was to protect our country and they succeeded in protecting our country.
And Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the members of Congress that were in these briefings know that. And I think for that reason alone, we would succeed in court. But ultimately, we're not going to give up on this. The Freedom of Information Act request is in. They'll file a response probably in 30 days or maybe less. And if necessary, like I said, we'll go to court. We've done that before and won't hesitate to do it again.
BECK: All right. I want to continue this conversation but I also have to talk to you about the support of the unions, that Barack Obama is giving unbelievable support to the unions and some of the shenanigans going on there. We'll do that next.
BECK: Jay, counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice - Jay Sekulow is back with us now. Jay, real quick, one last question on this Freedom of Information Act. How long before we'll know if we can see the transcript of what was actually said in those torture meetings?
SEKULOW: It should be 30 days. They can get extensions. We're going to monitor it closely, obviously. They have to respond one way or another. They can say no and that will put us in court. Like I said, we've already done the research on that. Those complaints are being drafted.
I expect that they're going to push back hard on this, Glenn. And I think that we may well have to go to court. But if we have to go to court - look, that's what we do at the American Center for Law and Justice. We've got to go to court.
BECK: I love that.
SEKULOW: We'll be in court in the District of Columbia.
BECK: I love that. OK. You know, there was a story in "The Washington Times" today about all of the favors this administration has done for the unions. And one of my favorite - I was looking up with the "Wall Street Journal." The unions - with Chrysler, they were offered almost 100 percent - these are non-secured items here.
They were offered almost 100 percent on their money. The people, the bondholders, that are guaranteed to be first in line - they were told, "You'd better take 36 cents on the dollar." How does that happen other than political payoffs?
SEKULOW: Right. Yes, but let me tell you the hidden part of this. And you're seeing this also with some of the attempts by the administration with regard to card check, which is allowing the unions to basically not to have votes in privacy anymore.
BECK: Yes.
SEKULOW: If there is a dispute with the union and management, and it is not resolved in 120 days, the federal government gets to come in and administer that dispute, which basically means the federal government then takes the side of the union and you end up exactly what you are talking about - the union would be running Chrysler.
BECK: Yes.
SEKULOW: And this is not only wrong to the secured creditors, those that put the investment capital into the company, but it really is another power grab by the federal government to socialize yet another industry.
We are seeing it with the banks. You're seeing it with the auto industry. And I think this is the tip of the iceberg. I think the reality is that if you let the unions - and look, people have the right to union- organize in a lot of states, I understand that.
But what you don't have the right to do and should not have the right to do is have the federal government come in and mandate the reorganization structure outside of the bankruptcy court.
BECK: Look, I have to tell you something. If the government was independent and an honest broker, well then they could get in and they could say, "Look, you two. Knock it off. Sit back down at the table and work it out." But they're not an honest broker.
So once you have a dishonest broker and the unions know the government is going to come in and be on their side, why not just wait and go, "No, I'm not going to negotiate." Because all the power is on their side. It's two against one.
SEKULOW: Well, of course. And what happens is - remember this. The government in this particular administration doesn't want there to be that reconciliation that you talk about, a good faith negotiation where the government comes in basically as a neutral arbitrator.
They're not an umpire here. They're not calling balls and strikes as they see them. They've taken a side. They have become a cheerleader for the other side ...
BECK: Right.
SEKULOW: ... against the management. And what happens when that happens is that the union ends up running the show. And the end result of that will be we won't have to worry about unions and check cards because there'll be no cars to put together.
BECK: You know, it's amazing you don't - there's no - it doesn't feel as though there are people in Washington, these big parties, where they're being honest brokers anymore, where you can trust it.
It's all - everybody's got a side deal. Everybody's got an angle. Everybody's playing and pitting one against the other. I mean, what is the turnaround on this, Jay? How do you get out of this?
SEKULOW: The American people have to speak out. I think what you saw with the tea parties that you were so involved in is the American people have the right to speak. You know, in our country, we have the right of assembly and association and speech, which is what we're doing here today.
And the government does not have the right to intimidate and coerce. And the Supreme Court has been very clear about that for well over 80 years. But the reality is you've got an administration that appears on its economic policy to basically want to do this - socialize every major industry you can, which puts the government in control, utilize the unions to get there, with the end result being everybody becomes dependent upon the national government.
BECK: OK.
SEKULOW: That is so contrary to our founding, and so contrary to the way our economic system works that it's nothing but dangerous.
BECK: Jay, thanks a lot. We'll talk again.