Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Justice Dept. memo lays out legal case for drone strikes

Details

  • Description

    Document details when it's OK to target Al Qaeda-linked US citizens

  • Duration 3:59
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

America's Newsroom

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

Memo reportedly describes why targeted strikes against Americans do not violate their constitutional rights.

If -- are believed to be senior operational leaders of al-Qaeda wore an associated force and even yes.

There's no evidence that they are engaged in an active plot to attack the United States ambassador John Bolton -- a former US ambassador to the United Nations he's a Fox News contributor.

I'm investor could you see news.

-- -- do if you.

President Obama would appear to have a rather different opinion of the Patriot Act in the war on terror -- ten senator.

Obama back -- he was highly critical.

The Patriot Act in and President Bush's.

-- Methods of waging war so I guess you get a case of the for reels when you sit in the Oval Office don't you.

Exactly reality can do strange things -- ideological.

Presidents like Obama and I think here.

Correct at least in broad strokes.

On this question of targeting Americans in going after.

Terrorist more generally.

This memo appears to be consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration.

Yeah I mean it has been longstanding role that US citizens who take up arms with the enemy.

-- -- Eligible to be attacked -- American military forces.

That is been the case in conventional wars in the United States including two world wars right.

-- absolutely I don't think there's -- thing that particularly new here I think.

Those who say but there's no due process are assuming the conclusion if you.

Assess the threat of international terrorism to be the equivalent of war.

Then year and the law of war paradigm this is not like robbing the local 7-Eleven.

Where you resort to the law enforcement paradigm.

And it doesn't mean that there are no rules at all it means as the memo explains you have to be looking at people.

Who are engaged in operations against the United States and this memo appears to be.

That's fairly narrowly tailored and and I think entirely appropriate to the kind of threat we face from international terror a couple of federal courts have recently considered what we're talking about and one federal judge said look during war the killing of -- an enemy combatant albeit a US citizen.

Is not a matter for judicial.

Review.

Its exclusively an executive branch function you would agree.

Yeah absolutely they they constitution I think is very clear.

Under article two that the president's commander in chief.

Power is not something that's judicially review -- all except in extraordinary circumstances I think the risk is.

They were trying to have lawyers litigate the war powers of the president rather than.

See -- used as the framers intended.

Real quick last question for you and let's put this up on the screen because this is from the recently leaked secret memo.

The condition that an operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the US does not require the US to have clear evidence that.

Of a specific attack on US persons and interest in the immediate future is that an expansion.

Ambassador.

Of our pre existing policy or not.

Not at all less than two months before Pearl Harbor Franklin Roosevelt said.

When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike you don't wait until you struck before you crash and he authorize the use of force.

Against German submarines and ships in the North Atlantic even if our ships were not fired on first.

I think that's consistent with longstanding American policy.

And there's little doubt given all of the evidence -- Milwaukee.

Was a surrogate of Osama bin Laden and intimately involved in their terrorist operations ambassador John Bolton good to see you thank you.

Thank you.

Load More