Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Today making the case for killing.
A Justice Department memo which has just been uncovered it is laying out.
Why the White House says they believe that it is okay to target our citizens.
Overseas under certain circumstances this is a brand new hour now America's -- -- Cadet -- this everybody I'm Martha MacCallum.
And I'm Gregg -- in for Bill Hemmer.
This confidential memo reportedly describes why targeted strikes against Americans do not violate their constitutional rights.
If they are believed to be senior operational leaders of al-Qaeda wore an associated force and even yes.
There's no evidence that hearing gauged 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.
Investor could -- see you.
-- -- 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 Danny 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 -- you.
Exactly reality can do a 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.
Terrorists more generally.
This memo appears to be consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration.
Yes I mean it has been longstanding role that US citizens who take up arms with the enemy.
Off are eligible to be attacked by American military forces.
That it's been the case in conventional wars in the United States including two world wars right.
Now 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 at this memo appears to be.
That 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 another enemy combatant albeit a US citizen.
Is not a matter for judicial.
Its exclusively an executive branch function you would agree.
-- absolutely that 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 -- except in extraordinary circumstances I think the risk is.
There 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.
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 -- -- struck before you crash and then he authorized 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 long standing 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 didn't see -- thank you.
-- you an idea of how common -- drone strikes really are in Pakistan alone.
There have been 330.
-- strikes since this program began.
Back in 2004.
Seven strikes already this year and we're only into the F February so it is estimated that more than 2400.
Have been killed in Pakistan.
Since this program begins.
Filter by section