MADDOW: They didn`t get it? The Justice Department didn`t hand over
what the committee asked for, that we all reported last night the committee
was going to get this morning because the president had OK`d it? They`re
still holding out?
Joining us now is Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who has
repeatedly asked the Obama administration about our drone policy.
Senator Wyden, it`s good to see you. Thank you for being with us.
WYDEN: Thank you for having me again.
MADDOW: Did you not in fact get what you had asked the president to
give you and that you thought you would be getting this morning based on
your conversation with the president last night?
WYDEN: Rachel, it`s not clear. The fact is, and I went in first
thing this morning, I was able to read some information that was helpful.
I`m just not convinced yet that it is the full legal analysis that we need
to do to do vigorous oversight.
What today was really about is, of course, it was a nomination hearing
for John Brennan. But it ultimately was a question of upholding our system
of checks and balances in government. And I think that system is out of
whack these days and we`ve got to do some more for transparency and
accountability in getting those checks and balances back.
MADDOW: In terms of this specific program that you`ve been asking
about the legal advice for, specifically targeting Americans, at least
specifically targeting one American we know who was killed, Anwar al-
Awlaki, who was a prominent member of al Qaeda who was killed in Yemen in
2011, are you asking about it specifically because you believe that action
might have been illegal or the program that does this might be an illegal
program? Or are you withholding judgment about its legality, you just
believe that they should have to disclose more of their legal reasoning?
WYDEN: I believe to keep that system of checks and balances the
Congress has got to do vigorous oversight. That`s what the charge, Rachel,
is to the intelligence committee. It calls for vigilant oversight. And we
can`t do that if we`re being kept in the dark on fundamental matters like
the legal analysis for these targeted killings.
And I think as you indicated on the clip I heard, this is something
that Americans have a right to know. They have a right to know when their
government believes it`s allowed to kill them. And I think it`s time, and
one of the things that was encouraging about the president`s call last
night, is to have a national discussion about how we can shore up our
system of checks and balances and bring the public into it.
MADDOW: In terms of -- I guess in terms of your overall effort to try
to pry more information out of the administration on this, in order to do
oversight, as you`re saying, when you have seen information that they have
released even though they initially didn`t want to release it, when you
finally get that information do you feel like, oh, I see why they didn`t
want to release it, I see how a leak of this information might be
operationally dangerous or might compromise something that we legitimately
should keep secret? Or when you see that information, do you think you
know what, they shouldn`t be keeping as much secret as they are?
WYDEN: What I said by way of summarizing is I think what I`ve seen is
a step in the right direction. But I`m not convinced that I`ve seen
everything. And in fact, if there is legal analysis out there that is
central to how the law is being officially interpreted, we need to see
that.
You and I have talked in the past about something I call secret law.
You know, the law is supposed to be public today. It`s different than
protecting sources and methods.
The law is the official interpretation of the government. It ought to
be public. And too often the interpretation has been kept secret, and
that`s what`s wrong.
MADDOW: Do you think, though, in terms of what the president has been
reluctant to release to you on the Intelligence Committee -- do you think
that he has a case to make? Do you see his side of the argument that it
might be dangerous to release the information, even just to the Senate? Is
there an argument to be made on that side?
WYDEN: The president, of course, is the commander-in-chief. And the
Constitution vests in the president these enormous powers. But they are
not unchecked. There are limits.
And that`s what the president and I talked about on the phone. He has
some ideas that I think are worth talking about in terms of this national
conversation about how to strike a strong balance, a strong set of checks
and balances in a very different era.
This is a time when the lines are blurring between the military and
intelligence. Technology has, of course, changed so dramatically. I think
it`s time to walk through how to come up with a modern system of checks and
balances. That`s what I call upholding the Constitution.
MADDOW: Senator Wyden, you asked a question in writing to John
Brennan ahead of this hearing that quite literally has kept me awake at
night. It has caused me insomnia thinking about it because of the blunt
terms in which you put in it and because I hadn`t thought of it before.
You asked, should an American who is targeted for killing by our
government have the opportunity to surrender?
And you asked John Brennan that today. He responded that any American
who is a member of al Qaeda should know that we are with al Qaeda and
anybody who`s in al Qaeda can surrender at any time and thereby eliminate
their risk of being killed by the United States.
Were you satisfied with that answer?
WYDEN: I wasn`t.
And here`s what`s at stake -- there are certainly instances where an
American takes up arms against the United States, where I think it`s
important in order to protect the country to use lethal force.
But I can tell you, the government makes mistakes and sometimes the
intelligence is flawed and sometimes they get the wrong person. And the
reason I asked that question is I think those kinds of issues ought to be
part of this debate and ought to be part of a system of checks and
balances.
MADDOW: Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, I know it`s been a very,
very long and taxing day for you. Thank you for your time tonight, sir.
WYDEN: Thank you for having me.