Return to Transcripts main page


Maryland Judge Sparks Debate by Dismissing Case of Alleged Child Rapist

Aired July 23, 2007 - 19:00:00   ET


GLENN BECK, HOST: Tonight, an accused child rapist walks free. Why? Would you believe the court couldn`t find an interpreter?
Plus, gaping holes in security at one of our country`s largest airports.

And, blowing the whistle on the whistleblower. The latest on the NBA refs suspected of fixing games for the mob. Will he need to change his identity for good?

All this and more, tonight.

Hello, America. I think it`s safe to say that political correctness and weak laws or those laws that don`t get enforced at all, are kind of my pet peeves. Actually if you watch this show you know that those issues are at the top of the list of things just make blood shoot out of my eyes. Well, buckle up, because they have come together now in a perfect storm. And in the aftermath, a judge has set an alleged child rapist free.

So here`s the point tonight. We must demand that officials protect the innocent by enforcing the laws that we already have on the books, and rewrite the ones that aren`t tough enough. Being victimized by a criminal is bad enough, but being victimized by our court system is inexcusable and it`s type it stops.

Here`s how I got there. Authorities in Maryland say that Mahamu Kanneh, a West African native, allegedly molested and repeatedly raped a seven-year-old girl for over a year. Now, they got a tip from one of this guy`s own relatives. Authorities arrested him, not because they`re racist, or because he was an immigrant, but because they had enough evidence to try him for serially raping a child.

So what happened at the trial? Yes, see, that`s the problem here. Judge Katherine Savage of Montgomery County, Maryland, set this alleged rapist free. After three years in her court, they couldn`t find an interpreter who could speak the tribal language of Vai, the accused rapist`s native language.

You know, I should probably mention here that Mahamu received asylum in this country when he was a kid himself. He attended high school here in America. He went on to community college, yeah. Even though this monster had been speaking English since he was a teenager, when he was arrested, he spoke to the detectives in English, he gave the reporters his reaction to his release, in English.

The legal eagles down in Maryland, decided, ah, not really good enough. No, no, they said, he really needed to have his Vai spoken in order to understand the proceedings against him. Otherwise, it just wouldn`t be fair. They spent years looking for an interpreter. After three of them didn`t quite make the cut, they let this guy go.

He`s as free as a bird, even as we speak, English. As they were writing a story about this in "The Washington Post," the reporter there found three Vai interpreters; ironically enough, one that even lives in the same town, in Maryland, as the accused rapist.

So, tonight, here is what you need to know. First off, laws are supposed to protect the victims, not the criminals. And any law that fails to do that is a bad law and needs to be thrown out or rewritten.

Secondly, we have to be able to trust those charged with enforcing the law to do their job. And remember whose side you`re on. Judge Katherine Savage, letting an accused child rapist go free was, quote, she said, quote, "One of the most difficult decisions I`ve had to make in a long, long time."

Hey, Katherine, here`s an idea, then don`t make that decision. What could be more in line with your responsibility as a judge than to err on the side of we, the people, instead of a guy who probably raped, serially, a seven-year-old?

Today, the state`s attorneys office in Maryland announced their intention to appeal the decision of Judge Katherine Savage. And I agree. They should. And you know what? Maybe this woman should be out of a job, along with that judge that was suing people for pants.

If you live in Maryland, sleep tight, knowing she`s still making decisions that affect you and your children. You got to wonder who is she going to let go next?

Wendy Murphy is a former prosecutor and professor at New England School of Law, and Jami Floyd is a criminal defense attorney and an anchor for Court TV.

Jamie, bring me up to speed on the case itself. It sounds like a pretty brutal case.

JAMI FLOYD, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, ANCHOR, COURT TV: Well, look, the facts are alleged facts, as you said, Glenn. Nothing was proved against this man because they couldn`t get to trial. And if the facts, as alleged by a family member, which is often the case in sex abuse cases, are true, then it is horrific what is suggested, a seven-year-old child raped, sexual assault, molestation over a period of time are the allegations.

BECK: We don`t -- Jami --

FLOYD: So that`s all bad, but all alleged, not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

BECK: I got it.

FLOYD: No, I don`t know that you do, Glenn. I don`t know that you do.

BECK: Really? Yeah. I do. We don`t usually go -- don`t go to court, Wendy, on just one person saying something, do we?

WENDY MURPHY, PROF., NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, let me tell you something, you can. The word of a citizen in this country --

BECK: Do we usually?

MURPHY: We often do. No, wait. That is enough. By we almost always do. And by the way, there is DNA in this case. And you know what? So he`s entitled to the presumption of innocence. That`s not the story. People are concerned about what happened because the allegations are so brutal that children are not safe now that he`s walking free.

And look, what happened here may well be the biggest fraud ever committed against the people of the country because there is no --

FLOYD: Children, perhaps in his family.


MURPHY: Let`s talk about the fraud on the court, Jami. When he lied to the court in the fact that this guy

FLOYD: Let`s talk about Judge Savage.

MURPHY: doesn`t speak English.

FLOYD: Wendy Murphy, let`s talk about Judge Savage.

MURPHY: You should be angry about that.

FLOYD: What I`m angry about is the misrepresentation to the public that the judge is supposed to protect the victim and not the Constitution. The judge`s duty, whether you like it or not, is to the Constitution. As Glenn said, we, the people --

MURPHY: The judge is to blame --

BECK: Let me tell you something --


BECK: Both of you, both of you. Hang on, ladies.

FLOYD: The Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial.

BECK: Ladies, Wendy, shut the pie hole for a second. Shut the pie hole for a second.

MURPHY: That wasn`t me.

BECK: You know what this story is really all about? What this story is really all about is some guy goes to court, he can clearly speak English, he can clearly speak English --

FLOYD: Not so clearly, Glenn.

MURPHY: Yes, clearly.

BECK: Wendy, Jami, Wendy --


MURPHY: He grew up in Guyana, where -- an English speaking country. He spoke to reporters, he went to college, he had a job. You know what the outrage is here? That a psychiatrist made a decision that he should have this strange level of interpreter there. You know what? There should be a hearing. When this case is reversed on appeal, there should be a hearing. His friends, co-workers, people who taught him in college should be sworn to tell the truth under oath, can he speak English?

And let me tell you something, Jami, if they say he does speak and understand English -- and by the way, he commanded the child to perform sex acts in English -- but if this is a fraud on the court I want his lawyer and him --

FLOYD: Wendy, Wendy --

MURPHY: To go to jail for a fraud --

FLOYD: I wasn`t aware -- I wasn`t aware, Wendy Murphy, I wasn`t aware that you were in the room when the alleged acts happened. I wasn`t aware that you were in the courtroom --

MURPHY: That`s not the issue. Will you stop with the red herrings?

FLOYD: Will you let me finish, Wendy. I let you finish, let me finish, as I always do when you appear on my program. Now, the bottom line --

MURPHY: Jami, don`t distract the viewers, though.

FLOYD: I haven`t said anything to distract the viewers, because you won`t let me get a word in edgewise.

MURPHY: Not true.

FLOYD: To attack this judge, to attack the process -- let`s consider what would have happened if this went forward and he had a series of interpreters in this language of Vai. I don`t know about you, Wendy, I know you were a prosecutor for many years -- I defended people who couldn`t speak the language. Perhaps they spoke it some, but wouldn`t speak it thoroughly. Then what happens? It gets reversed on appeal for failure to provide an adequate defense get --

BECK: All right. All right.

FLOYD: That`s what the judge is protecting the citizens and the taxpayers against.


BECK: Hang on, hang on. Ladies, ladies, this -- let -- Wendy, Jami, zip it for a second. Let me just throw this in: Three years, Jami? Three years? "The Washington Post" could find somebody in an hour. That`s "The Washington Post."

FLOYD: I agree with your outrage there. Find and interpreter.

BECK: So why wouldn`t the judge hold whoever`s job it is to find an interpreter, hold that person in contempt? Get an interpreter into this court, period. And if you don`t get somebody qualified, I`m throwing your ass in jail.

FLOYD: Look, I don`t know that contempt is the appropriate remedy.

BECK: I`m sorry, I`m a thinker, I`m not an attorney.

FLOYD: And they don`t always go together, right? Look, the judge is absolutely right and she`s said since this all went down we have a lot to learn and I wouldn`t be surprised if someone is going to pay. I don`t think it should be the judge. It`s probably going to be the administrator of the courts, or someone in that office.

But I will tell you that if you stand in a real courtroom, not in a studio, but a real courthouse, you see dozens and dozens and dozens of cases involving people who don`t speak the language to various degrees.

BECK: And you know what?

MURPHY: I disagree --


FLOYD: This is a huge burden on our system. It is a huge burden.


BECK: Ladies --

MURPHY: The right to a speedy trial is not absolute.


FLOYD: Have you read the Constitution lately?

BECK: Gang, gang, gang, we`re going.


BECK: Bye-bye now.

MURPHY: You know it, she could have delayed it.

BECK: We`re going.

Let me just tell you something, if he can`t speak English, then I hold his high school English teacher in contempt, and throw her ass in jail.

Wendy, Jami, thanks for a spirited debate.

Coming up, justice for jailed U.S. border agents Ramos and Compean. Could a federal court hearing today finally tip the scales in their favor? And what could it reveal about any back door deal between the Mexican government and our own?

And Tammy Faye, her colorful life, inspiration and fodder to many. Remember the former televangelist with a playwright who saw both sides.

Plus, you`ll think by now those pesky little airport security gaps have been sealed for our protection. Yeah, not so much. An undercover investigation in Phoenix, you have to see to believe. And the TSA`s response. Coming up.


BECK: Coming up a little later, evidently the best time to beat the airport security in Phoenix is between the hours of midnight and 4:30 a.m. Hey, terrorists, set your watches. The big giant security gap uncovered at that city`s Sky Harbor Airport and what the government officials are doing about it, you will not believe what the TSA told us this afternoon. That`s coming up.

But first, after months of telling you about one of the all-time great travesties of justice, it looks like the tide may finally be turning for wrongly imprisoned U.S. Border agents Ramos and Compean. I don`t want to get to excited and jump the gun here, but finally it`s just not me and Lou Dobbs scratching our heads wondering why these two loyal Americans ended up behind bars for over 10 years apiece, for foolishly trying to stop an illegal alien drug smuggler from trafficking 750 pounds of dope in the U.S.

That`s not a court case, that`s a Cheech & Chong movie.

Lawmakers in Washington have now taken an interest in these two political prisoners, as I call them, asking tough questions to prosecuting attorney Johnny Sutton. Questions I don`t think he has very good answers for, quite frankly.

There is another D.C. hearing that was supposed to happening today, thanks to Judicial Watch, this is the public interest group that investigating and prosecutes government corruption. They have filed an application for injunctive relief -- I`m not an attorney but that doesn`t sound too good --claiming that the U.S. government agencies have failed to produce records of the communications and the actions between the U.S. and Mexican officials, concerning the prosecutions of these two guys.

Joining me now to wade through all the legalese on today`s proceeding Chris Farrell. He`s a director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch.

Chris, what is an application for injunctive relief, quickly?

CHRISTOPHER FARRELL, JUDICIAL WATCH: Glenn, what we`re asking is that the government stop engaging in gamesmanship. We`ve asked for these documents to be produced to us. They failed to do so. We sued them. The government then continued to stonewall and double talk. And this is our effort to go to the court to say, your honor, look, the government is not abiding by the law. They`re involved in gamesmanship and all sorts of shenanigans. We need you to get involved.

BECK: Chris, I have to tell you, this is the kind of stuff that leads people into conspiracy theories. Whether there`s a conspiracy or there`s any kind of weird stuff going on between us and Mexico, every step of the way the government has tried to stop people from looking into this case. All the way from Homeland Security officials lying to Congress and saying, no, no, you don`t want to get involved in this, we have information. And then never producing that information.

FARRELL: Absolutely. And in this case, we have the government making representations to the court saying there`s no public interest in the questions we`ve asked. And I find that both insulting and laughable at the same time.

BECK: OK, what are you looking for? Are you looking for anything on the October load, because there`s something that -- I mean, Johnny Sutton has told me this is happening, we`re looking into it. Then he kind of alluded that we don`t even know if that ever happened. What exactly are you looking for?

FARRELL: In the broadest sense, we`re looking for all the communications between Homeland Security, Justice and State, and the Mexican government. And those sets of communications between those three agencies on the deal that was struck, the immunity deal for the Davila, the Mexican drug runner.

BECK: Do you have any idea -- I think his name is Renee Sanchez, he`s the guy, who is a Border agent, that his mother was called by the mother of the cartel member.


BECK: And I said to Johnny Sutton, just last week, for the love of Pete, at least tell me this guy is up on the Canadian border. I`m not saying that Renee Sanchez is dirty, but let`s not have him with friends of a drug cartel down on the border.

FARRELL: Yes, it`s extraordinarily weird circumstances, where Homeland Security, IG agent is sent in, and there`s this personal affiliation. It`s off the charts. There`s a procedural error just to start with.

BECK: OK. So last week, Feinstein said she thought it was prosecutorial overreach. But there are words of, you know, Mexican helicopters, unmarked Mexican helicopters over our border, et cetera, et cetera. Do you think it`s just Johnny Sutton or do you think there`s a chance this goes a lot deeper than that?

FARRELL: It`s a lot deeper. There`s a lot of pressure involved. There`s a lot of political influence. That`s why we want to get a hold of these documents. Because rather than speculating and guessing, we want the documents to speak for themselves. And that`s why we`ve gone to court to force the government to produce these documents.

Let`s lay all the cards on the table, let`s educate the public about what really went on. And then folks can make their minds up. That`s what we`re about, as an organization, Judicial Watch.

BECK: I have to tell you, I`m so disappointed and disillusioned with my own country. I don`t want dirty cops. I don`t want dirty Border guards. If you`re out intentionally shooting people on the border, because you`re just a scumbag, I want you in jail. And I don`t have a problem with you in jail for 10 years.

But everything in me says this is not this case, and it may in the end turn out not to be -- you know, that I`m wrong. It may turn out to be that I`m absolutely wrong on that. But I would like to know. And I think that`s the way the rest of the American people feel.

FARRELL: Absolutely.

BECK: So the latest is that some in Congress are going to push for the sentence to be commuted. Bush came out and said Johnny Sutton is a good friend of mine, he has my confidence. Do you think that`s going to happen? Is Bush going to push for this?

FARRELL: Well, I mean, if it`s Scooter Libby in question, certainly the president has let his opinion be known very clearly. When he had two Border Patrol agents who put their lives on the line everyday, somehow it gets forgotten and that`s a shame.

BECK: Chris, I wish you luck. You`re on your way to the courthouse now. Just an unfriendly reminder for you, of the time already served, by Ramos and Compean, along with agent Gilmer Hernandez. While they wait for some sort of leniency or pardon, on what I consider to be political prison terms.

We`re trying to do our part by selling these T-shirts. These are -- I had these made up and you can buy them at my website, "U.S. Border Patrol: To Protect and Serve Time". All of the proceeds, every dollar from these is going to their legal defense fund. Check it out at

Coming up, where do you draw the line when it comes to getting information out on terrorists? The guidelines, the president has authorized tough measures now, but are they tough enough?

And a zebra could be sleeping with the fishes. An NBA referee is accused of fixing games for the mob. We`ll talk to an investigator who actually was undercover for a time with the mafia. His take on what is in store for the NBA ref.


BECK: Back in the late `80s, you know, when I was just a kid, Tammy Faye Bakker was heavily mascared and she was the face of televangelism. Along with her husband, Jim Bakker, Tammy helped turn the Praise The Lord ministry into one of the biggest in the world, taking in millions of dollars a month. Most of which I believe her husband embezzled.

Then they divorced, Jim went to prison, Tammy got remarried to Jim`s former partner, who also went to jail. And then she went, you know, on her way quietly through her life, which sadly she lost this past Friday, after a long battle with cancer. She was truly one of a kind.

But I`m not sure how I feel about her, honestly. I think I`m like most Americans.

Fernando Dovalina wrote "The Gospel According to Tammy Faye".

Fernando, when you first met her, you expected not to like her, is that right?

FERNANDO DOVALINA, AUTHOR, "GOSPEL ACCORDING TO TAMMY FAYE": That is correct. I had the same image that probably you`re talking about that a lot of Americans had -- have, still have -- that she was one of these money grubbing televangelists.

BECK: Yeah, I don`t really necessarily have that. I`ve -- you know, I kind of fell off the wagon, if you will, when she fell out of the news. I just know her from the news, and I saw so many people saying oh, my gosh, she was such a great person. And I don`t know that, myself. You met her and what was your impression of her?

DOVALINA: My writing partner, J.T. Buck and I went to Charlotte, North Carolina, in 2004. The first thing she did -- she and her husband, Roe Messner, greeted us with books and tapes, which were not gifts, they were research materials for our musical, "The Gospel According To Tammy Faye." And we sat down to have lunch with them, and she -- you know, what you see is what you get.

She went through all the typical things you expect of somebody who is bigger than life, as she was. First of all, she said grace, for instance, at the meal. She giggled a lot. At the drop of a pin she would giggle. She told stories. She sang.

BECK: Did you feel it was insincere? Because, you know, the one --

DOVALINA: Yes, oh, yeah.

BECK: The one thing I did notice about her, and I never knew if it was sincere, was she was always optimistic. She always seemed bubbly and she always seemed like she had the brighter side of life. But, you know, I didn`t know if that was part of being on TV or if that was real.

DOVALINA: Glenn, I think it was real. One of the reasons is because - - one of the questions I asked her why are you so upbeat? You`ve had this tumultuous life. You may have cancer again. She appeared to be in remission at the time. Why are you so bubbly? Well, she said, I rediscovered the inner child in me, and when she was a child, a 10-year-old, she discovered Jesus, as she has written. And the peace and the power and the joy that came along with that, and she said along the way I lost that. But then all of a sudden she`s found it again, that purity and that innocence.

BECK: The one thing that I found real respectful is at the end, she didn`t want to know how long she had to live. She was like, when I die is when I die.

DOVALINA: Yes, it`s remarkable, isn`t it?

BECK: Yes.

Fernando, thank you very much.

Coming up, the NBA point shaving scandal and why the family of the referee at the center is asking about the witness protection program. We`ll talk to a guy named Vido. No, really, he`s done some work with the mob, believe it or not. Seriously. Stick around.


BECK: Coming up in just a bit, death threats pouring into the home of the NBA referee accused of fixing scores as the kind of request of the Costa Nostra. Hmm, who would have guessed? What a surprise. We`ll talk to a former organized crime investigator. He may have some ideas about what comes next, and it ain`t pretty, my friend.

But, first, welcome to "The Real Story." There are some things in life that we all love to complain about but we wouldn`t dare give up, for example, airport security. We all hate it, but I doubt that any of us would be willing to get on a plane if they turned off all the metal detectors and the x-ray machines. Unfortunately, that`s exactly what seems to be happening in one major U.S. city. Every night, from midnight to 4:30 a.m., TSA agents go home and rent-a-cop security guards take over the checkpoints.

During that time, all that`s required to get inside the securest side of the airport, you know, where the commercial cruise missiles are located, is an employee I.D. badge. Take a look at some of this incredible hidden video that a CNN affiliate, KNXV, captured during their investigation. Every single night, just by showing an I.D., these people are able to bring in unsecured bags, coolers, backpacks, purses, luggage, even bikes and supply carts.

Now, I know that some terrorists may not exactly be Einstein, but quite honestly, a radicalized Paris Hilton could pull off an attack with this kind of security. As unbelievably naive and arrogant as this video proves we still are with our security, the "Real Story" is, the part of this that no one else finds important is where it`s happening, Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.

If you watch this program, you know earlier this year, as a result of a viewer tip, we did a "Real Story" about all the terrorism-related incidents that have been happening in the Phoenix area over the last few years. You can read that story right now and see all the isolated incidents for yourself right now on the front page of I told you at the time we`d be keeping an eye on Phoenix for anything out of the ordinary, and I`d say this certainly qualifies.

So how could it happen? How could an airport in the city that has been referred to in a classified FBI-CIA report as the "long-range nexus" for Islam extremists allow such a gaping hole in security to remain open?

Larry Wansley, he is the former head of security for American Airlines. Larry, the thing that amazes me is the TSA said this afternoon that pretty much, in a nutshell, they stand by this.

LARRY WANSLEY, AIRPORT SECURITY EXPERT: That doesn`t surprise me. It truly doesn`t.

BECK: It surprises everybody in the viewing audience. How does that not surprise you?

WANSLEY: Well, there is a lot of stock, there is a lot of confidence placed in the vetting process that requires an FBI background investigation, fingerprints, that sort of thing, before the airport I.D. is issued. There`s a great deal of confidence placed in that.

I think it`s somewhat misplaced, because when you look back over recent years, hundreds -- I said hundreds -- of airport employees who have gone through the process with I.D. such as that have been arrested in terrorism plots, smuggling, narcoterrorism, all sorts of criminal activities, up to and including theft of millions and millions of dollars. So there`s a degree of criminality involved here, and all perpetrated by people that have gone through the process and have I.D.

BECK: You know and I know money doesn`t talk, it screams. And you can get people to flip at a drop of the hat, especially in this country nowadays. And Arizona is a hot zone. You`ve got the border problem right there. I mean, what are we concerned about? In America, at least people like me have been shouting, "Let`s secure the border," not just because of the illegal immigrants that are coming across, but what else and who else is coming across, and you`re right there. There is something going on in Phoenix. How is it this airport can be the first to get those x-ray machines, but then leave this hole in the middle of the night?

WANSLEY: Well, frankly, I was amazed. I had the opportunity to view a lot of the video before I actually went to the airport. I was very, very surprised at what I saw in my review, and then actually had the opportunity to go in person and see for myself. It`s a troubling situation, quite frankly.

BECK: Let me ask you this. I mean, you used to do security, what is it, for American Airlines, you were the head of security there?

WANSLEY: That`s right.

BECK: Should the American people feel safe after seeing this video? I mean, I know we don`t check cargo. I know there are holes in the system, but this is huge. Should you feel safe?

WANSLEY: Well, it`s a situation where there is a great deal of effort that is being done by the government, by the TSA and everything else, but clearly there are flaws that have to be wrapped up.

BECK: Larry, thank you very much.

Next, last Friday, President Bush signed an executive order providing clear guidelines for CIA agents to follow when interrogating suspected terrorists. Most of the media has been trying to make this about torture, but the "Real Story" is it`s not. It`s about providing our agents in the field with the tools they need to keep us safe. Until now, the people on the front lines have had no idea if doing anything to a suspect beyond good cop-bad cop would eventually land them in jail, kind of like our U.S. border guards. We tell these people, "Go out and do your job and protect us, but just don`t break any of the rules we haven`t really made yet."

Now these interrogators know exactly what they can and can`t do, although nobody is saying publicly what it is. Most experts believe that things like exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat -- oh, my -- putting them in stressful positions and sleep deprivation. You know what? I`ve got to tell you something. I have two small kids at home: That stuff happens in my house all the time. And it may be torture, but you can live with it.

If you ask Americans what they think about torture, a majority says they`re against it. But once you start naming the actual procedures that we do, they start to lighten up a bit. For instance, you ask them about sleep deprivation, most, I believe, would roll their eyes, but two-thirds are fine with it. Sensory deprivation, like hooding, is approved by 57 percent. And I bet you that number would be higher if you didn`t give it the ominous name like "hooding." "Oh, no, it`s dark in here."

In a perfect world, we wouldn`t have to issue orders to clarify exactly where the line is on torture, but news flash, we don`t live in that world. There are people out there who want us dead and things like air conditioning, scary sounds or threats of violence, if that can prevent those things from happening, you count me in.

Brad Thor is a former member of the Department of Homeland Security`s Analytic Red Cell program, author of the new thriller, "The First Commandment," which I got to tell you, Brad, I read this weekend. I`m about halfway through. Holy cow, does torture play somewhat of a leading role in this. That`s why I wanted to have you on. You`ve done your research on it.


BECK: A, is it effective?

THOR: Well, it depends on what we`re talking about here. And the way I`d like to set the stage, Glenn, is everybody looks at the Geneva Conventions, and those don`t apply to Al Qaeda. And what we`re talking about here is not pulling out fingernails. I mean, the stuff that you just talked about, sleep deprivation, the cold cells, the chiller, you know, all the way down to water boarding, the CIA used to have a six-step process, and process number one was grab them by the shirt and shake them. This is not pulling hands off.

BECK: But you know what? I have to tell you, Brad. I`ve got to the point to where there`s kneecaps being drilled in your book, and it`s not being done by a psycho. There`s an imminent threat to the country. You know exactly who this guy is. You know that he knows that we never do things like this. When it comes to an imminent threat, if my child would be in a school and there was an imminent threat, and you knew that guy had information, and it wasn`t being done by a psycho on our side for enjoyment, you go for it, man.

THOR: You go for it! There`s no question, and that`s called the ticking time bomb scenario. And even the Israelis, who passed kind of a John McCain "we never torture" thing in 1999, when the intifada happened, and they were getting all these bombings and everything, they went back to serious physical coercion of suspects, and it was successful. They knocked the bombings down.

BECK: We`re dealing with people -- I mean, look what they did to Daniel Pearl. He was a journalist. They beheaded him. We`re dealing with people that are animals.

THOR: They are absolute animals.

BECK: You`re going to sit here and have a nice chat with them?

THOR: Listen. The question here, Glenn, is not about whether torture is permissible, but when torture is permissible. And there`s two examples. One is the ticking time bomb, when there`s a nuke in Manhattan and it`s going to go off in an hour. And the other thing is kind of a slow fuse burning on somebody like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, where we need to do what is necessary to get the information and not a step more.

But to say that we should never torture is not only the height of moral foolishness, it`s also tinged with a great deal, a great degree moral vanity on our part. It`s great to have saintly people in this country who never want to torture, but we have to be vigilant. And I`ve read this repeatedly in articles, that we have to be vigilant not to allow those people to be in positions to make life-or-death decisions for us as Americans.

BECK: I have to tell you, I mean, I just don`t want -- you know, as liberals will say they want abortion, rare and, what is it, rare and legal? I feel the same way about torture. I don`t want that taken off the table. I don`t ever want to drop a nuke, ever.

THOR: I agree.

BECK: But you know what? If you have to, you have to. And I don`t want it taken off the table.

THOR: You know what, Glenn? Ask one of the family members of someone who died in 9/11 and ask them how they would feel if torture could have gotten us the information to prevent that attack. And I bet you, to the last man, woman or child, you`ll get a resounding yes.

BECK: If it is, indeed, usable information, I would agree. The timing seems weird to me; there`s something up with this timing. Why are we coming out with this? Do we have somebody who will -- do we send people to Jordan?

THOR: Well, you know what? I`m not going to name the country, but it`s kind of what I`m starting to hear now from my people on the ground, people who have done interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are plugged in, is that it`s the last person at Gitmo turn out the lights. This vocal minority wanted Gitmo shut down, because they were afraid of how the prisoners were being treated.

Well, what this is going to result in, based on the rumors I`m hearing, is that these guys are going to go to a country that`s allied with the U.S. in the Middle East, and guess what? There`s going to be a lot more latitude, because the Arabs are famous for torturing. And they`re not going to have the P.C. tyranny we have in this country telling them what they can and can`t do. So guess what? Some people just made it worse for the Gitmo detainees.

BECK: Brad, thanks a lot. That`s the "Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a "Real Story" of your own that you`d like to tell us about, please visit and click on "The Real Story" button.



BECK: If you could change this, Anderson, to some sort of a "Survivor" island thing, maybe people would start watching it, where we vote some people off every week.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: I want to see some tiki torches on the stage tonight, but maybe we`re going to put some on. I should come up with some sort of tag line like, you know, "Your flame has been extinguished."

BECK: You can have an immunity challenge, you know, where they have to wrestle each other.

COOPER: I like that idea.

BECK: See, that would be good.


BECK: Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton, who do you think would win?

Seems there`s some bad news this week for the NBA. One of their referees is being investigated by the FBI for allegedly -- and don`t wish I had a nickel for every time I had to say that word about a guy who ends up being actually guilty -- working with mobsters tied to the Gambino crime family to fix the scores of NBA games. Turns out this ref had a bit of a gambling problem, and this was his way of paying off his debts to the mob.

Authorities say the other NBA officials and even players could be named as this betting scandal goes into overtime. There`s also talk about putting this guy into the witness protection program, which you and I would pay for. His family feels that he won`t be safe in jail from the long arm of the mob. Boo-hoo! I say throw him right in prison if he did the crime. After all, I mean, he is used to wearing stripes now, isn`t he?

Vito Colucci, Jr., private investigator, used to work undercover in organized crime unit. Vito, do we have to go to a guy named Vito for this? I mean, God bless you, Vito, but it`s hard not to make the jokes here. This guy is -- I mean, a zebra head in his bed is coming, isn`t it?

VITO COLUCCI, PRIVATE DETECTIVE: Yes, this is a sorry situation. Obviously, his career is done. That`s the least of his worries, Glenn, OK? And they`re not thinking about the witness protection. He has to go into that, OK? I worked undercover with organized crime. There`s no way this guy is going to survive.

BECK: So, Vito, why did they let his face go out? Why didn`t he just disappear?

COLUCCI: I mean, his face is good. This is a high-visibility type of a job. I mean, his face is going to go out. The main thing is, organized crime knows his face, OK? They know who he is. But the problem with that, even if he goes in the witness protection program, winds up in Bismarck, North Dakota, with his wife and family, this is a big, high-profile case, Glenn. They may set a tone here. They may go after organized crime. They go after his mother, father, sister, brother, anybody just to make a point on this. So it`s not going to be over just with his immediate family there, Glenn.

BECK: So what happened, Vito? How does this kind of stuff happen? He was over his head. I would assume, you know, if the mob comes calling, you have a decision to make. The right thing would be to call the FBI and say, "Wire me up," right? But is there any way out when the mob comes calling?

COLUCCI: Well, he would have been smart if, at that moment, he did go to the FBI and wire him up. Now, that doesn`t save the problem of them wanting to hit him, OK, but at least then he doesn`t get arrested. Maybe he can go out a little bit more class from the NBA.

But you see, what happens, he got in so much trouble, he told his bookie, "I don`t have the money." The bookie goes back to the underboss of the family, he says, "Hey, we got a referee." When I worked undercover with organized crime, I remember one specific O.C. guy that said to me, "Man, if I could only have a referee in my pocket for one game," that`s all this guy wanted, OK? But here, this guy did several games, which I`m surprised.

BECK: How much money do you think this guy made the mob?

COLUCCI: Oh, and this has to be something where they have what`s called a close point spread, "pick `em" game, one or two points either way. You can`t do this on a big high spread. So what he does is he makes some foul calls. He may do a technical foul. He may throw one of the star players out of the game. But I`m surprised he didn`t go to these O.C. bosses and say, "I`ll give you one game and then we`re even," OK, and try to get out of it. But, you know, they would have killed this guy if this didn`t come out to light, because if he would have said after eight, nine, 10, 20 games, "I`m done," they would worry about this guy down the road. They would have had to kill him.

BECK: I was going to say, when you said, "I`ll do one game," I mean, they`re not going to let him out with one game. You can never get out.

COLUCCI: Yes, he wouldn`t know that. He would just say, "I`m not doing anymore, my bet is paid," and they would probably whack him after time. So this guy is in terrible, terrible shape.

BECK: So, Vito, last week we had the dog betting. We have this. I mean, there`s just not a lot of confidence in professional sports now. I mean, you got Barry Bonds, and they seem to be turning an eye on that, kind of. What`s going on?

COLUCCI: Well, you know, Glenn, it`s different sports than we watched when we were kids, and I`m probably older than you, but I`m not interested in watching players that are filled with steroids breaking records or things of that nature. It`s not the same anymore. But, you know, your producer asked me that, and the whole key though, Glenn, is you could take somebody that`s an athlete, you can say, "I`ll give you $20 million, play for my team," but that doesn`t change their nature. If they`re an alcoholic, if they`re a bum or whatever, giving them $20 million to play on a team is not going to change them. That`s the problem with sports.

BECK: You know, I mean, I hate to get real philosophical here, but it`s kind of the problem with the whole country, is that we have seen money as our solution to our problems. I mean, even people coming across the border in the middle of the night, they just want the money, so they stopped looking at this as the land of opportunity. You know, some of these players just see this as a way to make $20 million and not change their circumstances, not see it as an opportunity to change your family`s life for generations.

COLUCCI: That`s right, that`s right. You`re dealing with a referee here that made the bad call, is what he did, how he tried to get out of this.

BECK: Vito, it is always a pleasure to have you on, sir, even though -- I mean, you even wore the gangster coat. I mean, that`s just...

COLUCCI: I even got the Bada-Bing, Glenn, even got the Bada-Bing for you.

BECK: Thanks a lot.

COLUCCI: Thank you.

BECK: Coming up, insight or insanity? Big debate tonight for the Democrats, and people all over the country have been submitting their questions for their candidates via YouTube. I`ll bring you some of the more interesting submissions that didn`t make it, when we come back.


BECK: Well, as you probably know, tonight, CNN is making broadcast history, hosting the very first presidential debate consisting entirely of questions posted on YouTube. Oh, yes, yes. About 3,000 submissions were sent in and, yes, I admit I watched every single one of them, or none of them. I don`t remember. It`s one of the two.

But here are some quick tips for the candidates, you know, in case they`re watching this show instead of actually participating in the debate. Let me just show you some of the submissions. This one comes in from Dean Rizzo.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yo, yo, yo, my name is Dean Rizzo, aka the Dubs, aka Big Bad Caller, coming to you live from the Dubsworth, in Ohio, the Buckeye state. Any way, I got a question for all you. What are you going to do about the haters that be out there on the street? Yo, I got a big problem. You want to president. What are you going to do about it? That`s my question. Debate it out, son.


BECK: Well, unlike many of you, I`m from the streets. Therefore, I speak the language of today`s youth. And I`d like to tell him: Yo, yo, Mr. Dubs, what we need to do is put "da haters" into "da lockbox." Under my administration, I would advocate legislative policy with a goal of cutting the "hatin`" by 32 percent by the end of fiscal year 2011. And, after that, we could index the "haters" inflation index, a`ight?

Here`s our next question from YouTube.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As president, would you support full disclosure of all government information about UFOs?


BECK: The answer is obviously no. You know, we really -- all we know about aliens and everybody would have the ability to control all human minds, as well as cook an entire pot roast to perfection in 12 seconds. Oh, no. Did I say too much?

Next question.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have too much hair. If elected, what will you do about this problem, and why?


BECK: This one John Edwards is going to throw his hands up like he`s a nerdy girl in the fourth grade. "Oh, oh, pick me! I know. Go get a $400 haircut!" Remember, it`s important to look good when you`re on the poverty, and the best way to do that is to spend enough to feed six families for a week on something that could be down by a Flowbee. Just saying.

Don`t forget, for free transcripts, audio and video, sign up for my free daily e-mail newsletter at From New York, good night, America. Peace out.