Justice makes case for killing US terror suspects overseas
When is it legal for US government to kill American citizens?
- Duration 6:55
- Date Feb 5, 2013
When is it legal for US government to kill American citizens?
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Think I got -- -- He's gonna -- not later but first we have to ask the question.
Is it ever okay for the US government to kill its own citizens well what if they where al-Qaeda terrorist there's a secret Justice Department memo.
That's been linked to the press and it revealed the Obama administration's legal justification.
For targeting American suspects.
Who are terrorists overseas with drone strikes attorney general Eric Holder defended.
There's controversy prior to.
We have as a basis for action that we take congressional statute that allows us.
To operate against al-Qaeda and associated.
Entities not only in Pakistan or not only in Afghanistan from other parts of of the world.
We say that we only take these kinds of actions when -- There's an imminent threat when capture is not feasible and when we are confident that we doing so in a way that's consistent with.
-- federal and international law.
-- -- attacks not new we've known for a while that the Obama administration has been.
Using that the legal justification was something that was revealed and will probably be a big topic at -- hearing on Thursday when he is goes goes before the senate about the CAA can I.
-- a SoundBite -- go back to me okay this is Jonathan Karl and Jay Carney at the briefing earlier.
How does dropping bombs on an American citizen without any judicial review any trial.
Not raised the very human rights question for more human rights questions then something with more.
The questions around this issue are.
Important and the president takes some series but let's be clear this is giving the legal justification.
For killing American citizens without any trial we get over when -- -- -- yeah I would point you to the media ample.
Judicial precedent for the idea that someone who takes up arms against the United States in a war against the United States.
He is it is an enemy.
All right -- you wanted to say something yeah -- -- holder said he says.
Imminent threat to the United States haven't read for this -- they're talking about the conditions and operational leader present an imminent threats of violence act -- United States does not.
United States to have clear evidence -- -- specific attack in US persons shall take place in the immediate future in other words.
They had they couldn't dropper drone on somebody was US citizen it would no justification whatsoever as is.
John -- -- out.
This is a basically murder without having any evidence behind it and -- ideas on how you can do this.
Without some clear about to understand if you there was a plot being raised by US -- and you do about it but in this case they say specifically you don't have to have.
And now you're being negative on Obama well it doesn't listen he is now -- -- it I I appreciate the intellectual honesty though about that because one of the questions has been -- bit.
-- out Angel questioned if bush had done that yes that web -- I should have created -- Well when it was revealed that President Bush had authorized the listening and a surveillance of telephone calls between.
An American somebody on American soil could be an American -- terrorist and somebody overseas.
It was mayhem out and it Rwanda very good program and now President Obama is doing -- drone attack -- and the laughs.
Is -- sort of the kept up their time.
You know what I don't know Dana can we please stop calling them drones are prepared to call them peace planes are OK they're compassionate devices used to protect civilians from evil things like water -- By killing them first they're like.
I don't feel like Planned Parenthood with remote sensing the fact is when you look at the media Obama can do no wrong if he -- Cuba.
They would laud him for curing the Cuban flu.
Very strengthened and you say you can't really well this is managing point because they're not there actually being pretty consistent this is something that they should complain about right in the otherwise -- -- hypocrisy.
And they are there back taking the administration to task on this ain't that it is unlawful to do this without specific evidence the administration is fighting back on and -- -- understands that it's up -- almost 400 something percent.
The number of that drones -- what we're using in terms of compared to that previous.
Say that's an interesting question can I actually think that I'm conservatives Andrea are in a little bit of a bind at that they would agree.
That this -- okay do you think that's where a lot of them come down yet I have -- -- -- hypocrisy disciples some conservatives there's the neo cons right there's other conservatives that stand on the other side which is.
That's where -- stand.
And I actually think that this DOJ memo is a farce.
I think that they had to put this memo out there because they -- killed and -- all lucky who is a US citizen.
But look this is the same administration that wanted to give civilian trials to foreign terrorists in downtown Manhattan US -- -- they have no problem killing Americans.
With with no due process I think it's incoherent and frankly laughable and it's not real Al -- -- Was in the process of planning and implemented right acts against United States -- what they're saying here and -- -- if you have a relationship with a terrorist group however tenuous that is you're there for about able to be killed by protect I think that -- against everything that.
And that I believe at least that the constitution actually stands for and the protection Kenji I think at that Russert.
It's all Catholic if they just think you're a bad person they can do it which I why not -- even once.
The government Dana with the Patriot Act even looking at library records a -- expected terrorists during the Patriot -- so it's hard to believe -- be quiet on this now.
Do you think Greg that this was strategically leaked by the administration to get it out there to take attention away from.
A block on the economy.
I think you're absolutely rightly has -- -- -- I'd like it's -- Bob and I Rivera I am I what I would have been -- drones under bush so I would be a hypocrite.
By didn't -- the fact that President Obama is -- or terrorists than anybody and honestly I don't see your nationality but they're not quite how do you know their parents.
Well that's a good point that they had -- act it's not a bit not that I also wanted to run doesn't matter Dana I want my own drowned if there's going to be a time.
Things are so small that I mean for anybody walking home at night a woman could have a drone in her purse and when there's somebody coming out of she goes like that the -- comes up and things in the face.
You know you say actionable intelligence if you have actual to actual.
That you get intelligence says this person is planning -- -- the United States that that night -- -- -- that.
At imminent threat right.
But this is status just -- -- and repeat this does not.
Require the United States that clear and specific information -- that is just Bob don't you think this is a CYB.
Covering your but I don't know what it is but I know what it is I don't think it's constitutional.
-- like CYB -- your Bob.
-- bad apple T shirts coming up right as a good discussion and they have what they think they job how much everybody at participating really.