after the game. so that ought to tell you right there what the mood of the italians is. >> italy, powerhouse, gone. good to see you, gabe, thank you. i am tony harris in new york. "inside story" is next on al jazerra america. >> for anwar a lpga al alawki.

>> hi, this is inside story. america's security agency say he became part of a terrorist organization. he was not arrested. he was not charged. he was not arraigned. he never confronted his accusers. eventually he was killed by a drone strike. the u.s. government decided u.s. citizens had to die to further the security of other u.s. citizens, and it was done. now the country gets to see the rationale for the leaguety of these killings. the document drawn up to give itself permission to kill a man who had taken to the internet to guide people to pull off terror attacks. whether that explanation is sufficient is our focus on "inside story." >> anwar al-aulaqi.

a reputed leader was born in new york and worked in northern virginia as a cleric. in 2011 he was killed in yemen with a drone strike along with another u.s. citizen samir khan. al-aulaqi's son was killed just years later. a released edited verse of the 2010 memo used to justify the killing of al-aulaqi. it was written by david barry. he wrote: >> the memo went on to acknowledge: but when the target

poses a imminent threat. the memo said that the c.i.a. and military assured the department of justice they intended to capture aulaqi, with you doing so would be infeasible. the memo describes aulaqi as a militant in al-qaeda involved in the botched underwear bombing in 2009. but it was other plans that made aulaqi an imminent threat. david baron was nominated to the appeals bench and members of congress threatened to hold off his nomination. the nomination before us is about killing americans not involved in combat. the nominee david barron has written a defense not involved

in combat. make no mistake these memos do not limit drone executions to one man. these memos become historic precedent for killing americans abroad. >> when the administration said it would not sign the release of the memo any more. he was confirmed. they said he would have been derelict in his duty had he not authorized the strike that took him out. in may the president called for more transparency in the drone program. >> we must take strikes own when we face a continuing imminent threat and only when there is near certainty of known civilian

casualties. >> the memo released this week is at the heart of the debate of the use of drones not only of americans abroad but in the farther stroke of america's enemies worldwide. >> there are, of course, many shades of gray. what constitutes an imminent threat? who decides capture is not feasible? and what are the limits of power over life and death when a program operates in secrecy? that is this side on inside story. joining me, michael boyle professor at la salle university who advised president obama on terrorism during the 2008 campaign. david sydney, former secretary of defense over afghanistan, pakistan during the obama administration. and director of the human civil liberties unions.

now that you've seen the justifications does it make the case that the killings were justified? >> i don't think it makes the case. it's not much more of an elaboration and there are real problems with what was presented in this doctrine. the first question is what they consider i a imminent threat. it says there needs to be no evidence to have a threat to consider a threat imminent. and then it says we don't need evidence. then it falls back to the standard of feasibility which i think is problematic. in the open calculation that if soldiers might die the capture is infeasible, and it can be used in killing. the document opens such a space for the administration to expand this program that i don't think what you see will be defense of

this continued program. >> you have seen the document in question, does it make the case that in certain circumstances the administration should be able to act the way it did? >> i think it certainly does. i think it's even more important to realize this is an issue that goes beyond just the narrow issues presented in this memo. the issue here is the responsibility of the president of the united states defending the people of the united states against attacks. he has a dudey to carry them out consistent can the values of the united states and constitution. he has duty to carry them out and respond. i applaud the very way in which this administration has taken that responsibility. they've looked at it.

>> michael boyles, if that definition had been beefier, more defined to decide what it is, would you feel it is even more an issue? >> i think those exist. this over all decision, and the memo does not discuss the issues that i just raised. the issue of threat. when someone is sitting there with their finger ready to press a button, yes, i think everybody would yes that you could orde agree that yes, you could do that. but that's where you have to have responsibility, and i believe the administration had met that test, and i think this memo is not part of everything, it's not the answer to everything.

>> in the push of the release of the memo, it's out, what do you make of what you saw? >> the release of this memo is long overdue. the memo is important for both what it tells us, and it's important for what it doesn't and there are other memos that the administration has not yet released. when they claim to have the authority to kill people based on shifting standards, secret evidence, this memo shows a weak rationalization. it does not answer crucial

answers about its novel continuing threats stashed attend doesn't show what standards of proof would be necessary, and how we would insure the insular decisions without making mistakes with regard safeguard. >> given the things you say are missing, given things that you say is there in some of the argument, that in the view of the american civil liberties union could meet the standard of the president acting in this way? when you say this is not short of this, i would it meet the silvecivil liberties test.

>> there certainly are circumstances. that would make this permissible, and those circumstances, for example, force may be used in the context of war. when you're outside of the war context, it is within a legal concrete imminent threat. that go beyond what the law permits based secret that is never passed by an independent court whether the facts are justified for claims of authority.

>> it does an appear that he was declared part of the united states. in that respect, it's not a question whether he was an enemy. it's a question of where this memo itself provided legal justification answering the questions you just raised about taking this person out. there is an argument in some cases when you take the example of someone about to press a button that will launch a bomb that will kill american citizens. that is an extreme example. extreme examples do not make good standing law. we have no idea the standings of anwar al-aulaqi and this case

itself may not be the right case to use when you think of the general architecture for the target of killing, which the administration clearly has. >> why not provide the reassurance that we have talked about? why not get really specific and build a legal architecture so when this happens again everybody understands what the rules are? >> well, the problem with seeking after the fact architecture such as you described we are in a new world today. a different world than a lot of past legal structures are set up for. i think this administration has done an celebrity job of balancing the competing priorities. but always i think keeping the priority of protecting the american people first. if you look back, for example, at the u.n. resolution that was passed after 9/11, they passed a resolution saying that all possible means should be used to

defeat the terrorist threats. one reason why kind of facts that the professor said or not included in a release like that is because what if you get that kind of information you have to use intelligence methods by which disclosing them, precludes them using them again in the future. you can make yourself less safe by that transparency. this is a tough set of issues. i don't think there is one size fits all answer. in the end it really does depend on the trust of the american people in their institutions and their leadership. i think the administration by releasing this document has taken a step forward, but i agree that there are other rationales, other memos that are part of this overall architecture, and by not disclosing them the administration is subject to some criticism, but i think it's criticism that the administration has t to adopt

as the american people. >> we'll talk about what could have happened otherwise in the skies and on the ground in yemen. this is inside story. stay with us.

the stream is uniquely interactive television. we depend on you, >> you are one of the voices of this show. >> so join the conversation and make it your own. >> the stream. next on al jazeera america and join the conversation online @ajamstream. >> you're watching inside story. i'm ray suarez. this time on the story we're looking at the just released legal justification for killing

american-born cleric anwar al-aulaqi in yemen. does the administration's explanation for the killing cut t and how could have things gone otherwise right then in real action on the battlefield. if we had summoned anwar al-aulaqi to the embassy, would he have shown up? >> well, you know, i'm not sure that's the right question here. the right question here is what is the administration's claim of legal authority, how does it stand up, and how is the administration setting a precedent that could be used afterwards. no one is denying that there are serious allegations bean made against anwar al-aulaqi, but without minimizing, i think how are the limits of the administration's claim of war

base authority used to deprive people including this citizen of life. i think one of the most troubling aspects about the memo is that it says that one of the core tests that we use under international law to determine whether war exists not, whether there is duration and intensity of hostilities, what looks like war doesn't have to apply. and instead there is a vague assertion of people being part of or associated with al-qaeda to justify war-based authority. you can see how we might be concerned about these broad and expansive claims being made not just by this president, but the president who comes after him. and how might we react if, for example, russian, china or iran claim the authority to declare one of its citizens or others enemy of state based on vague legal criteria, entirely secret evidence and carry out their killings far from any

battlefield? i think we would regait going down this path, and i think we will regret going down this path. >> david, issues raised by the fear of unretrained executive authority without needing to justify it to anybody else, isn't that a problem? >> i think that's a legitimate question, but i don't think it's a problem, and i think those fears are overblown. as i said i think the facts as they are applied in the aulaqi case and others in my mind clearly show that the president is saving american lives by the actions that he has taken. >> doesn't this transcend aulaqi as suggested by creating precedence for future actions on the part of the president unrestrained by the normal-- >> no, i think--agreeing with the earlier comment that this memo is not the be all end all.

it's a fairly limited memo in that sense, but it does layout and i think she would gray on this that the authority does have the authority oh carry out actions involving violence under our constitution and under international law in terms of self defense of the united states. it's not the question of the authority to do it. it's the question of what are the facts and how do the facts justify what is happening? here we have a situation where in pakistan, places where these activities are taking place you have governments that are not truly sovereign. you're talking about aulaqi being summoned to the u.s. embassy. if he was summoned the yemeni authorities, he would not come because they lacked the authority. and the same in afghanistan pakistan. this is an unique area. the hypothetical raised before

about other countries is a false hypothetical. it's not a question of them reaching into the united states and some other country where there is effective sovereignty where you can summon criminals. these are places where there are no other alternatives rather than using force and then you get to what kind of force should be used. the question of whether you use u.s. military or stand off such as drones? that's another layer of justification you need to look at. >> let me turn to michael bi boyle, professor, how should this have been done to answer some of your misgivings about the way it was done? >> well, i then, there are plausible alternatives. you can try the option of getting them to international court. that might not have worked, but what the administration has not explained why was it not

possible to use special forces? why was it not possible to partner with the yemeni government. it's true that he was found in less-governed spaces, but these areas, they could reach with its government into these aspects. this is a dangerous precedent for us to create. it leads to capricious use of the presidential power. trust me, this is the right thing to do, a and this will save american lives. but no evidence is provided to justify any of those claims. that's the problem that remains in the shadows and as such it's quite a dangerous precedence to set for future presidents of the governments. >> we'll take a break, and when we come back we'll look at the territories created by this different kind of war.

this is "inside story." stay with us.

>> welcome back to "inside story." i'm ray suarez. there have long been international compacts governing the rules of war on the battlefield. there have long been rules in the united states setting up the legal rights of every american. do people who hide in other countries, not in uniform, don't fite on behalf of a government, fall into the gaps of traditions and practices? david, it's a new kind of war. all of our guests referred to that in one way or another, does that mean you have to throw out the rule book all together? >> no, you don't throw out the rule book all together. it shows clearly that the u.s. government is not given real detailed discussion about what is the rationale of taking a

life of another person in the united states, and that is laid out quite clearly. the old rules, particularly the constitutional protections of the united states apply. but if we're in a war with another country and american citizen enlists for the other side they are subject to the same laws in the battlefield and being killed by our forces as people who are citizens of the other country. when you're participating in a conflict, citizenship is not the issue. the issue is if you intend to kill, then the presiden president of the united states has the responsibility to. prevent that. people who are sitting in afghanistan, pakistan, yemen can do things that result in major death and destruction in the united states and elsewhere. we have to be able to hand that will problem. >> professor, the memo does talk about anwar al aulaqi's rights.

it's not okay to kill people who are fighting but not in uniform. it does observe some of the needs set out a matrix for fighting war in this era. what more do you need to get us the rest of the way? >> well, the first thing i would say i think it dismissed the fourth and fifth amendment rights quickly and without elaboration. but more to the point, the larger question of what do you do with undeclared come bats in declared war is the question. this document misses an opportunity to start a conversation and develop law that deals with that problem. existing laws of war have gaps when you get to these issues, and the administration could be looking at how do we create a corpus of law that enable us to deal with these circumstances but restrains us in other

circumstances. they spent a lot of time to make sure that it doesn't create precedence and that's a missed opportunity in my view. >> if as you say it came out long overdue it's out. is this the end of something or the beginning of something? can you push this along and actually get something out of this that does set out more clearly for the american people the rules that bind us when we're at battle in other places in the world against irregular forces? >> certainly we can. look what this memo does. it takes the language of limitation and turns it in essence to permission, and it does so without real recognizable limits that may be enforced in other contexts now we're presuming we're in an armed conflict in all different parts of the world, and that's quite simply not the case. the law there when we are not in an armed conflict is clear.

the administration in this memo varies it's legal analysis from what the law is. we're not going to stop where it's seeking additional legal memos. this case is going back to the lower court. we're seeking more standard applicables to none citizens those thousands of people who have died in another case, but the administration does not wait for us and the courts to force it into disclosure. it could disclose the other ten other legal memos that exist. >> i'm sorry to cut you off, but that's all the time we have for today. michael, david, thank you both. that brings us to the end of this edition of inside story. thanks for being with us. in washington, i'm ray suarez. >> coming up, the scandal that

the defendant of veteran's affairs deepens as a whistle blower claims workers at a phoenix v.a. hospital hits veterans who died waiting for care, and it happened up until recent weeks. and the story of a migrant mother and her young child hoping for a new start in america, and behind closed doors the obama administration briefs the senate on the conflict in iraq. coming up in tonight's news. i managed to really memorize the features of the man that was actually the rapist in the room with us. >> fran drescher not only survived rape. she helped bring her stacker to justice. the lesson she learned helped her cope with another trauma. she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. two years after she began feeling symptoms. >> you have to be able to transfer from being a patient