This transcript is automatically generated
And welcome to FOX News Sunday panel plus with -- Russell Julie -- Laura Ingram and Juan Williams and I am looking forward to what I think is going to be a very spirited discussion.
And I will start.
-- Laura because let's talk about the -- but -- let me give you a scenario.
In Montana is leading an insurrection against the United States because that's kind of -- we're talking about here.
An insurrection against the United States -- more details please.
Now it doesn't -- -- everything is -- an insurrection against the United States he's he's.
In a place maybe he has access to dirty bombs or whatever he is clearly an enemy combatant he has links to some foreign -- Why wouldn't why shouldn't two questions one why shouldn't the president.
Have the ability to take him out with a round and two would you really want his authority to do that to be supervised by -- Senate Intelligence Committee -- College justice are not these hypotheticals are interesting but I think that the point you raised during the during the show which is a wider Rand Paul this what -- -- -- A couple of things that white paper that came out of the Justice Department there are two things that they mentioned that are important for your use of -- against Americans one was imminence of the threat.
Two was the the the credibility of the evidence against the individual.
Turns out that both of those prongs we're very wobbly right because -- wasn't really imminent.
And then a credible that threat you didn't -- clear evidence of a credible threat so they.
While we can make of these hypotheticals -- OK the whole country will be -- a -- we take this one guy out.
I'd get that but I think there's nothing wrong with stating some clear.
Bright line rules for when.
Can take out an American citizen on American so I don't think it matters if it's a drunk and -- they just you should be able to take money.
And you know I just I couldn't targeted assassination when the president was to kill us how do you get on the -- that Howard you labeled an enemy yeah.
Separate issue that's I agree with you on -- unit that's isn't having any -- to the president to -- well we think this man is leading an insurrection nobody has to review the evidence nobody has to actually.
Get a sense of whether the threat is truly credible or not.
If that's the case and there are a lot of individual without an amateur isn't what -- -- already -- Let's -- and understand Rand Paul gets a letter the day after.
From if not the filibuster and from the older.
Any -- -- -- this is a great victory on his part it seemed to me that the letter he got from holder was meaningless he said the letters that.
It if the question is will we hit an American on US soil.
Not in combat.
The answer is no I don't look for -- what does that say I didn't nobody got it either way I don't use I don't think he's got lots of editing out.
That was one of the things that -- public bringing up in the filibusters so I think.
And that was part of McCain and Graham this complaint about it that he was bringing up situations where the -- seemed obvious.
It says it's all hypothetical but that's exactly what -- called me.
I write you the code pink is supporting -- is -- all.
Thanks so yeah you don't -- so the ACLU Amnesty International Mitch McConnell John Cornyn Ron Wyden and Dick Durbin who stood up and said.
I actually support the fact that -- raising these questions.
We have a constitution guys I -- all of the -- part a war drums are always beating over the Wall Street Journal over Eisenhower and that's what they don't know I think -- thank you -- yeah.
I don't I don't know whether -- really interesting is the fact that the White House is of this position to welcoming well yeah no authority and I have this thing that.
Has spend we have been having a public debate about for years now is executive authority in the -- time.
And this is between the ports of -- and -- and and it's not just a political issue.
But this White House has come to understand the importance.
That of the aggressive posture that the bush position took in terms of doing some of these things and one of the worries about going down this -- I think Republicans need to think about.
Is if you start to a road again the president's ability in dealing with things like enemy combatants under established.
Rules of war then you begin who wrote a lot.
Market -- it got any idea how -- normally when.
Julie do you think that it was just reporting here -- there's any chance that the White House is gonna take a look at this and site.
-- we do need rules of the -- we do need to start putting out some structure and quite frankly because Obama is only to be president for -- -- more years and is gonna wanna put something in place for the next guy who may not be somebody who's he supports.
That plan in those conversations are absolutely happening in the NFC right now actually think we're going it get to a point probably in the next couple of months where you're gonna hear the president.
Publicly state is much as he probably catalog this is obviously classified -- there -- limits -- what -- can say publicly but there's a real desire.
From the president and from a lot of his top advisors to have this conversation.
With the American people and then beyond that they certainly want to be able to craft the rules on their terms before he leaves office.
And -- never president -- never hands all right the war on terrorism.
Never and there's no real and -- so -- -- not at war on terrorism we we're what we're saying here is that a president can keep.
A perpetual kill list that is may be updated -- we have the standard of -- -- the standard of credible threat the standards are very squishy and very Fuzzy the criticism has ranged from left to right on that this is not fringe criticism.
This criticism from every.
Aspect of the political android at home except for the journal -- Because yes I I agree with you in terms of the killed as he should be more transparent there should be some review you have to establish a bit -- room.
Well by either judiciary you can have a -- by that type of court special intelligence court or you could have some members of the intelligence committee who would be allowed access your question let -- British system -- -- -- which -- But -- what Rand -- was really had nothing to do with that Rand Paul was going on about eight total hypothetically.
Not -- at all.
Had a I a right as a US senator to stand -- inconvenience himself personally.
To ask since that galvanize the nation and he -- what I say yeah it was really waste some perspective actually the truth is that not galvanize the nation and galvanized a few people in Washington the American wallet to the American public is actually very much in the -- of the administration Allenby -- -- is is and overwhelmingly.
Overwhelmingly today and looking back.
Wearied of the wars that were at that we're being gone and supported by me under George W.
Bush there wearied of it and until -- -- as -- -- -- -- right now running acting we're running out of time and I and I don't know the answer to this amassing an open question.
Were you raising these same objections when bush was for -- absolutely not and I sat and yeah.
Do you South Africa.
I should have been raising now -- now.
I did everything -- know you are this is the fact that suddenly they're conservatives think that this presents in contrast with our.
-- -- how I was.
-- -- That's it.
Talk amongst yourselves don't think I just think.
It's a fascinating subject and my guess is that something that that it's going to be a national debate about as the war goes on and as al-Qaeda.
Zawahiri and and bin Laden to a bunch of other groups that aren't aren't assignment and -- they use the same standards.
For against them that they used against them not on American citizen just remember that.
Very hard to get the password and you know thank thank you battled -- -- -- with us throughout the week let us know what you think about the debate over rounds.
Look for my Monday edition of Wallace on blog you can find it right here fox -- -- -- -- dot com.
We'll see you back here that's.