evening. the "rachel maddow show" starts now. >> good evening. in 1996, a man who had no authority to do it decided he would issue a holy order. that man's name was osama bin laden. he issued this self-styled fatwa which he called a declaration of war against the americans occupying the land of the two holy places. the land of the two holy places is saudi arabia. the two holy places being mecca and medina. osama bin laden was, of course, a saudi citizen, and his whole first declaration of war on the united states hinged on the fact that the united states had military bases in the land of the two holy places, in saudi arabia. so that was 1996. then two years later, the second bin laden and al qaeda fatwa,

the first one i against had been a little rambling. this one spelled it out much more directly. it said everybody should try to kill americans, american military personnel and civilians and the justification for doing that started in the same place as the fatwa before. the one in 1998 says first for over seven years the united states has been occupying the lands of islam in the holiest of places. the arabian peninsula. so this one was 1998. and since the first iraq war, since the first, you know, the gulf war, serve years earlier, the united states had been maintaining military bases in saudi arabia which he calls the arabian peninsula. the land of the two holy places. and that fact that there were u.s. bases in saudi arabia, that apparently drove osama bin laden nuts. so fatwa. drive the infidel armies out of our holy saudi arabia. wage war on the saudi rulers for letting the americans be here. it was fatwa in 1996 saying get u.s. bases out of saudi arabia. then it was fatwa two in 1998 saying get u.s. bases out of saudi arabia.

three years later in 2001, it was 9/11. we do not talk about this very often. one of the things the united states did after 9/11 was get the u.s. bases out of saudi arabia. and they did it at a time when honestly the world was sort of distracted. we invaded iraq which had nothing to do with al qaeda or 9/11 on march 19th of that year. we announced we were pulling bases out of saudi arabia on april 29th, that same year. you might remember something else happening that same week in the news. we quietly announced we were pulling u.s. bases out of saudi arabia on tuesday. on thursday president bush declared mission accomplished in our very young war in iraq. osama bin laden's demand was we pull u.s. forces out of saudi arabia. president george w. bush pulled u.s. bases out of saudi arabia.

two decades earlier we'd gone through a similar kind of thing. in 1983 there was a huge suicide truck bomb that was driven into the u.s. marine barracks at the airport in beirut in lebanon. six months earlier, there had been another big suicide car bomb attack not on a barracks but on the u.s. embassy in the same city. 63 people killed at the embassy including 17 americans. at the barracks bombing the toll was almost unimaginable. 299 dead overall including 220 u.s. marines, 18 american sailors, 3 american soldiers. nearly 60 of our allied french troops. americans and the french and troops from a lot of other countries were there. they were in beirut as part of what was supposed to be an international peace keeping force. trying to stop or at least mitigate the effects of a civil war that was raging in that country. and the bombings were a terrorist message that those international troops should get out. get out, you infidel occupying armies. we do not want you in our

country. pull out the peacekeepers. then-president ronald reagan responded by pulling out the peacekeepers. >> this is an nbc news special. reagan pulls back the marines. here's nbc news correspondent tom brokaw. >> good evening. president reagan tonight ordered a major change in his lebanon policy. a phased pullback of american marines to ships just offshore. >> ronald reagan pulled the marines out of lebanon. george w. bush pulled the bases out of saudi arabia. the presidents have not gone down in history as guys who surrendered to terrorism, but that is part of the way they responded. it's important to think of this in terms of the overall spectrum, right? terrorism is incoherent. it's not like osama bin laden after 2003 said, hey, look, i told america to get the bases out of saudi arabia and they did. now we're cool and i'm ready to hug it out. pulling the bases out of saudi arabia did not assuage him, did

not assuage his desire to kill americans for whatever point he was tries to make with his vocation, right? yesterday we got a lecture from a guy covered in blood and holding a meat cleaver saying his beef with the west is he felt unfairly labeled as an extremism. the man covered in blood holding a knife said that. terrorism is incoherent. as such, there is no magic policy that you should obviously and definitely do in response to it that you can be assured will have the desired effect of stopping it. you can try to capture or kill committed terrorists. you can try to disrupt their plots. you can try to disrupt their organizational structure and means of communication. to screw up their planning to try to catch more of them. you can sneak spies into their groups the way the fbi in the great gangster movies flips a guy on the inside to try to get all the evidence and wrap them all up in a big sting operation. you can try to reduce the appeal

of their ideology so they have fewer new recruits. increase the chances anyone anywhere in the world who finds terrorist groups are operates in their midst will feel more likely to turn them in. you can do all of that. you can try to take away some of the things they are complaining about. you can try to harden yourself as a target so you are less easy to hit and so the casualty numbers will be reduced if they do hit again. there is stuff you can do. you can do all of those things. you can do things people think are a mistake. you can do things that people think look like surrendering. you can do things that people think are very, very, very tough. you can do a whole range of things but you will find no matter what you do that there is still terrorism in the world. and you will find that there is still anti-american terrorism in the world. from more or less ideologies, more less practitioners. never entirely will it be susceptible to counterterrorism policies and strategies. there's no one policy or

strategic response that is compelled by an act of terrorism because it's guaranteed to work. nothing is guaranteed to work. and there's a lot of terrorism all over the world. and in our own history, there's a lot of terrorism. i mean, terrorism on u.s. soil did not start with 9/11. as president obama noted in his landmark speech today calling for an end to the bush era construct of the global war on terror. the continuum of terrorism that we have faced, as americans, includes things like the oklahoma city bombing in 1995. and that barracks bombing in lebanon. and the embassy bombing there a few months before. the boston marathon bombing. the lockerbie bombing in 1988. the ft. hood attack. the sikh temple mass shooting. the hijacking in 1985. and, and, and, and, and. it's not like america has never been confronted by terrorism before. when 9/11 happened, when that specific instance of terrorism happened, the previous presidential administration decided the response this time

around was going to be war. war that would be indefinite, that would be gee graphically unconstrained and war that would be waged in a way that was sort of designed to be as low impact as possible for our civilian population. we got a huge round of tax cuts in this country a few weeks before 9/11. once 9/11 happened and we invaded afghanistan, we kept the tax cuts anyway. how did we think we were going to pay for that war? did we think it was free? when we started a second simultaneous war in another country, we gave ourselves a second huge round of tax cuts. after that second war started. the wars, i guess, we thought would be free. don't worry about it, civilians, go about your business. it wasn't just the tax cuts and other implicit means of insulating all of us civilians from the war so the war could go on without us much noticing or caring. it was also the direct shielding of us from knowledge of the war by waging a lot of it in secret.

and so after the bush and cheney years when we got a new president, he came into office. some new decisions were made. one of the two conventional wars that started after 9/11 was ended. they said they would end the war in iraq and they did. the other war, the war in afghanistan, is still ongoing. it also is slowly, slowly, very slowly being ended. outside those two conventional battlefields the new administration did not just keep up. they expanded the use of lethal action around the world in the name of fighting terrorism. operationally, they kept that up more aggressively than ever. that aggression made it possible to find and kill bin laden, himself. but while they operationally kept it up and expanded it, they also did sort of get less secret about it. over time, incrementally. march 2010, just over a year after their new administration took office, the famous human rights lawyer from yale who the administration had put in as the top legal adviser to the state

department, he gave the first speech explaining why the administration thought it was legal to kill people without a trial. he said, effectively, because it is war. then march 2012, the attorney general, eric holder, he gives anothespeech explaining, yes, that applies to even american citizens. april 2012, the top lawyer at the cia gives a speech saying that even if the cia does it and no one in the u.s. government will, therefore, admit to it, they still think it's legal. later that same month the president's counterterrorism adviser, now the head of the cia, gives a speech for the first time admits when we are killing people, we are killing people with drones. november 2012, the top lawyer at the pentagon, jeh johnson goes to england to give a speech in which he makes the case everything the administration has been doing is legal under the laws of war, but he says this war cannot last forever. it has to end. now today, last in a long series, we get the culmination. we get the president, himself, stating that, yeah, the war's got to end. war cannot be forever or it's not war anymore. it's something else.

>> our commitment to constitutional principles has weathered every war. and every war has come to an end. we must define the nature and scope of this struggle or else it will define us. we have to be mindful of madison's warning that no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. we must define our effort not as a boundless global war on terror, but rather as a series of persistent targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten america. a perpetual war through drones or special forces or troop deployments will prove self-defeating. and all to our country in troubling ways. our systemic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must

continue, but this war like all wars must end. that's what history advises. that's who our democracy demands. >> this is a big historic speech. this is a turning point for the way america talks about its role in the world. a turning point that we knew would have to come someday and that finally did come today, at least in terms of the way we're talking about it. in terms of what's going to happen next, the president had some specifics. specifically the president said today he wants to refine and then repeal the authorization for the use of military force. that was signed after 9/11. that is still in effect. he said he will not sign laws to expand that thing. he said he will lift the moratorium on sending prisoners home from guantanamo to yemen. he says he has told the pentagon to pick a site in the united states for military commissions to be held here. they will be held here and no longer at guantanamo. he says he has ordered a review of justice department guidelines

for spying on reporters as part of leak investigations. he says he wants a review of proposals for more oversight when we kill people outside of war zones like drones. he's putting a senior envoy in charge of trying to close guantanamo, again, even though that didn't work the last time he did it. all of those plans and the president declaring the global war on terror has got to be ended someday, this is a big deal, what happened today. this has been a long time in coming. joining us now is someone who has been working since the first day of this president's first term on pretty much every big national security and civil liberties issue that the president talked about today. jameel jaffer is deputy legal director of the aclu, currently representing the families of three american citizens killed by drone strikes in yemen, including anwar al awlaki's family. a detainee that's been held in guantanamo since 2002. and won a big victory in courts

when the court of appeals ruled the cia can no longer deny the fact they play a role in the government's targeting and killing people abroad program. as such, he is the one person i really wanted to talk to tonight after hearing president obama's speech. jameel jaffer, thank you for being here. >> thank you for inviting me. >> i feel like rhetoric is important and in terms of politics and rhetoric and the way we talk about our way in the world. it is important to talk about this war ending. in terms of policy, did you feel like there were things that were new from the president in this speech that you felt like were progress? >> first, i agree with you about the rhetoric. i think that's important. i think that the president did something very significant by saying we can't stay on a permanent war footing without compromising our democracy. so to the extent, that level of generality, i think the speech is powerful and compelling and overdue. it's one thing to commit to end the war, and another thing to end the war. and when you get to the level of

detail here, a lot sort of slips between your fingers. it's very difficult to pin down the language in this speech. there are some positive things that the president committed to do on guantanamo. appoint a new envoy to negotiate transfers to other countries. lift the moratorium on transfers to yemen. use the existing power under statutory law to transfer people who can be transferred. these are all very important things, and they are not the ultimate step. the ultimate step is releasing people from guantanamo. but these are necessary steps toward that end. so on guantanamo, i think there have been some positive developments. we have to see how they play out. on targeted killing i think it's more complicated. targeted killing, the administration has said that it's narrowing the authority to carry out strikes. to the extent that's true, that's obviously a welcome development. the administration is still claiming the authority to carry out strikes away from actual battlefields.

it's claiming the authority to carry out strikes against people who don't present truly imminent threats. so, so it's a strange situation where you have the rhetoric of peace but the reality of war. and, you know, which maybe there will be some convergence there. maybe eventually the reality will catch up with the rhetoric. but right now i feel like the rhetoric of peace is way in front of the actual policies. >> so on the guantanamo issue, there was a couple of quantitative issues that came out. picking the low hanging fruit. clearing people out of guantanamo who have been cleared for release and the barriers to release are political, they're not seen as security barriers. talking about reducing the number of people. when in comes down to people who he says cannot be released, he essentially expressed faith, that if we narrow it down to them, there are will be a few left. drone strikes, talking about narrowing the scope in which drone strikes can happen. he said, after we leave

afghanistan, there's going to be less, there's going to be fewer because we will not have the justification of needing to use drone strikes to protect our troops. i thought that -- he's making a principled argument, but bringing numbers into it that way, i wondered what your response to that was. >> less is better than more, you know? but, you know, ultimately there's an underlying theory here that's a real problem. the underlying theory is we are at war all over the world. that the battlefield is everywhere. and that theory is that the -- it's the problem with our indefinite detention policy. it's the problem with our targeted killing policy. a lot of the controversial and unconstitutional policies that the last administration put in place and this administration has continued or expanded flow from that basic idea. >> if that basic idea changes, do those policies have to change as a result? if the authorization for use of military force gets repealed, as the president said he wants to do today -- >> i do think they have to -- i absolutely think the policies will follow. but we should be clear about what happened today. what happened today is not that

the president declared an end to the war. the president declared an intent to end the war. that's a much different thing. and, you know, i don't want to -- i don't want to dismiss the significance of the rhetoric. i agree with you that the rhetoric is important, but i also don't want people to think that this rhetoric is enough. the rhetoric has to lead to actual action on guantanamo, on targeted kill, and thus far we've seen small steps in the right direction but only small steps. >> talking about planning for an end comes with defining that there will be an end someday. so we're sort of that -- i guess we're at the beginning -- >> the beginning of the end. >> there you go. jameel jaffer. at the aclu. thank you very much. >> thank you. robert gibbs is with us tonight as well. coming up. stay with us.

okay. it was may 2007. republicans across the country were in the process of trying to figure out who their nominee for president was going to be in the upcoming election to succeed george w. bush. one guy who really wanted the job was a former governor from massachusetts who that year sort of tried to run on the i'm a tough guy platform. >> i'm glad they're at guantanamo. i don't want them on our soil. i want them on guantanamo and they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. some people have said we ought to close guantanamo. my view is we ought to double guantanamo. we ought to make sure the terrorists -- >> double guantanamo. yes. mitt romney lost that republican primary. he lost to this guy. >> for closing guantanamo bay because it's become a symbol. it may be one of the nicest places in the world to live in, but it has become a symbol and we need to close guantanamo. >> john mccain won the republican primary that year. and at the time, he was really vocal about his desire to close the prison at guantanamo.

that position was also held by the man who was president at the time. >> i'd like to end guantanamo. i'd like it to be over with. one of the things we will do is we will send people back to their home countries. >> so that was the position on the republican side in the lead-up to the '08 presidential election. here's how democrats were dealing with the same issue at the same time. >> we should shut down -- i would the first day as president, i would shut down guantanamo. >> i voted to not build the new $36 million part. i called for closing it three years ago. >> i will close guantanamo which i think is a national embarrassment. >> we're going to lead by shutting down guantanamo and restoring habeas corpus in this country. >> that last guy, of course, when on to win. all the democrats including their eventual nominee said close guantanamo.

the republican president said close guantanamo. the republican presidential nominee said close that guantanamo. heading into the '08 presidential election, there was a clear national consensus, left, right and center that closing guantanamo was not only the right thing to do, nobody really was against it, at least nobody who was going to be in power. right? it was going to happen. so to nobody's surprise, on his second full day in office, the winner of that presidential election signed an executive order calling for the prompt closure of guantanamo. in that executive order, president obama noted that 500 guantanamo prisoners had already been sent home or to another country under president bush. president obama set a deadline of one year to get the rest of them out, send them home, release them, or put them in the u.s. justice system. whatever the most appropriate. the idea was take one year to close the thing down. closing guantanamo was a fore gone conclusion. it was the one area of absolute bipartisan consensus on national security. there was no pushback on the republican side. even if there had been, democrats controlled the white

house and both chambers of congress by a lot after that election. guantanamo was definitely going to be over. it was going to be closed. and then it did not happen. less than a month after the president signed the order to close guantanamo, republicans in congress started trying to block any of the prisoners there from being transferred to prisons in the u.s. not in my backyard. in response, democrats in congress folded. they caved. and they, democrats as well as republicans, took away the money the white house needed to close guantanamo. the next year congress, again, took away money for closing guantanamo. in the last month when democrats controlled both the house and the senate, they voted again to block the president from transferring anyone out of guantanamo and into the real u.s. justice system. so now more than four years after the president signed the order to close guantanamo, which everybody thought was a foregone conclusion, not only has the white house not closed guantanamo, but congress with the help of the president's own party put up a series of barriers to keep that from happening indefinitely.

that is what happened four years ago. today this president charged back into that fight, explicitly calling on congress to get out of his way this time. >> given my administration's relentless pursuit of al qaeda's leadership, there is no justification beyond politics for congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should have never been opened. today i once again call on congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from gitmo. >> why is president obama doing this now? what goes into the decision about that kind of timing? and for people who were there in this administration the first time around, people who were there when the president tried to float this policy before and it sank, what is their understanding of what went wrong the first time? do they get what the problems were the first time around so they'll be able to get around them now and get done now what they could not get done before? a man who could actually answer those questions because he was there and saw it from the inside joins us next.

imagine a future ten years from now, or 20 years from now, when the united states of america is still holding people who have been charged with no crime on a piece of land that is not part of our country. look at the current situation where we are force feeding detainees who are being held on a hunger strike. i'm willing to cut the young lady who interrupted me some slack because it's worth being passionate about. is this who we are? is that something our founders foresaw? is that the america we want to leave our children? >> more on the young lady who interrupted him in just a second. it's an interesting point there, right? i guess we have sort of gotten used to it. when you step back from it, it is kind of wacky to think our country is keeping a prison in

another country and that's where we put people in prison forever without charging them with any crime. then when they all started to try to kill themselves in protest, we physically forbid them from killing themselves by forcing food into them against will. the president trying to show how difficult that will be to explain to history when we are inevitably called to do so. the president picking up where he left off in '09. calling for the closure of the prison we have in cuba. robert gibbs, former white house press secretary. robert, thank you very much for being here. >> thanks for having me, rachel. >> so when you were in the white house, and the president set the goal of closing guantanamo within a year after he took office, did the failure of that policy sneak up on you guys? or could you tell early on that it was going to be in trouble? >> well, i do think you had a political situation where different parts of the political spectrum were trying to test

what they wanted to convince the american people was an inexperienced president. i do think the politics of it were maybe not as easy as we thought, and i think it got away from what we were trying to do pretty quickly. but i do think you have a president that's hunted down and rid the world of osama bin laden who's in fundamentally a different place now than he was even four years ago. >> do you have faith as the president pushes forward with this again that this time he will be able to hold even his own party? i mean, the thing that was surprising the first time around was not the republicans deciding to change their minds and decide they were against closing guantanamo all of a sudden. the thing that was surprising was see the democrats tuck their tail between their legs and run. >> right. i think the democrats are in a fundamentally different political position in dealing with terrorism. again, because of what has happened over the last few years. in decimating senior al qaeda leadership.

in hunting down and ridding the world of osama bin laden. i do think there is that. i still think there's an enormous communications campaign, if you will, that has to take place. you saw the letters that were being sent to the white house with don't send guantanamo prisoners here, don't send them there. and i think there will certainly be some of that. and i think we have to also really get some folks out there, particularly from the military. i'd like to see colin powell and general david petraeus, again, reiterate why they think guantanamo bay's detention facility should be closed, because as john mccain eloquently said in the clip you showed, it is a blight on our foreign policy. it's a recruiting tool to this day. it's been exacerbated by this hunger strike. we have a supermax facility in colorado. some of the worst people on the

planet are housed there with absolutely no danger that they're going to escape. we keep everybody from ted kaczynski, to richard reid, the reason we take our shoes off at the airport, to the underwear bomber on christmas day of 2009. we can house bad people in this country and shouldn't be afraid as mitt romney said in that clip that you showed, to demonstrate our values to the world in trying them, and if they're guilty, imprisoning them, and if not, releasing them. >> you're making the case right there why this should be possible. you're also saying work needs to be done. communications work needs to be done in order to sell this so it won't fail again like it did in 2009. given the work that needs to be done, why do you think the president is taking on this fight now? why pick now as the time to do this? given that it's going to take a bunch of political work to get it done? >> i think a few things.

one, i think this is what the president would consider one of the main unfinished pieces of business from his first term. one of the others probably immigration reform which i think is on track to get done at some point in the next year or so. the second thing i think you mentioned is this is simply an unsustainable policy. we cannot continue in perpetuity to keep prisoners at the guantanamo bay detention facility. it's just not sustainable. third, again, i think it goes to the unsustainability is the geopolitical reality of what this means as a blight to our foreign policy and a recruiting tool to al qaeda and its dangerous extremist affiliates. so for all of those reasons, now is the right time. but, again, i think it will not be an easy thing to do, but, you know, i was heartened by what some people said in congress today. certainly there were those that said, oh, you know, try to scare and do the predictable boogeyman. there were certainly some that said, you know, we do need to

close it, now we just need to work through or we need to find a plan for how to do that. and i think that is encouraging. >> robert gibbs, former obama white house press secretary. robert, thank you for your time together. i appreciate having you. >> rachel, thank you. >> hold on. we have more ahead.

today at the president's big deal foreign policy national security civil liberties speech, an activist who has been a thorn in the side of two white houses now, medea benjamin from code pink, wheeled into existence that rarest of things in presidential speech, an unscripted moment. >> so today, once again -- >> there are 102 people on a hunger strike. these desperate people. >> i'm about to address it, ma'am, but you have to let me speak. i'm about to address it. >> you are commander in chief. >> let me address it. >> you can close guantanamo today. >> why don't you let me address it? why don't you sit down and i'll tell you exactly what i'm going to do? >> president at first seemingly flustered by the interruption. sort of. then nobody quite knew how it was going to end because the heckling did not stop. she stopped for a second, but then she interrupted the president again and again and again. and eventually he just let her speak.

>> how about abdulrahman al awlaki. killed by you. is that the way we treat a 16-year-old? can you tell us why abdulrahman al awlaki was killed? can you tell the muslim people their lives are as precious as our lives? can you take the drones out of the hands of the cia? can you stop the signature strikes that are killing people on the basis of suspicious activities? >> we're addressing that, ma'am. >> will you apologize to the thousands of muslims you have killed? will you compensate the innocent family victims? that will make us safer here at home. i love my country. i love the rule of law. the drones are making us less safe and keeping people in indefinite detention in guantanamo is making us less safe. abide by the rules of law. you're a constitutional lawyer.

>> all that while, this was the look on the president's face. listening. standing there listening at what is supposed to be his own speech. but the look of a maybe flustered president being heckled at extraordinary lengths -- >> we're addressing that, ma'am. >> -- eventually seemed way to give way to something else. >> the voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. obviously -- [ applause ] obviously i do not agree with much of what she said. and obviously she wasn't listening to me in much of what i said. but these are tough issues. and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong. >> the activists at code pink and medea benjamin are not trying to make friends. they are out to be disruptive to those with whom they disagree. the president today reacted in a way that was so surprising in

part, i think, because he thought he was saying something in which anti-war protesters would agree. essentially the moment was there, hey, stop interrupting me and you might like what you're hearing. at least only some of it, you might like what you're hearing. more ahead.

these look like printer cartridges but they're not. they're explosive devices. taken apart and packed with bombs. they contain the explosive pentaerythritol tetranitrate. known as petn. in 2010, two bombs concealed like this in printer cartridges were mailed from a u.p.s. and fedex office in yemen to addresses in chicago. the packages delivered through four different countries, two different planes, two carrying passengers before they were intercepted in britain and dubai following a tip from saudi arabia's intelligence service. that was in 2010. that was an interrupted plot. we're now being told by the government anwar al awlaki, american cleric, who was a leader in al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, not only oversaw that plan to detonate the cartridges onboard the two u.s.-bound cargo planes, he was also, they say, directly involved in the details of its execution. the government says he took part

directly in even the development and testing of the explosives that were placed on the planes. and while we're on the subject, in 2009, a nigerian businessman walked into the u.s. embassy in nigeria. he said he was concerned about his son. he said his son was being radicalized. at the time u.s. intelligence officials deemed this concern over his son's radicalization to be insufficient to pursue at the moment. they did add the young man's name to a half million other names in a computer database. for the most part, the tip was sort of forgotten. until a month later in december 2009 when umar farouk abdulmutallab boarded a jet going from nigeria to detroit and had 80 grams of petn hidden in his underwear. and now more information. now the government is saying that the underwear bomber and anwar al awlaki, same guy, were introduced through text message.

that mr. awlaki hosted the underwear bomber in his house for three days before the kid went on to an al qaeda training camp. we're also being told mr. al awlaki planned it in detail. and a statement in a martyrdom video that would be shown after the attack. awlaki directed the underwear bomber to take down the u.s. plane. that his last instructions to him were to make sure he blew it up when it was over american soil. all these new disclosures about anwar al awlaki came in a letter yesterday sent by the attorney general to members of congress. the same points were reiterated by president obama in his big speech today. basically all of these new allegations against this american citizen who was killed are part of an argument by the administration that it was okay to kill him. it's an argument this u.s. citizen was not targeted for death and ultimately killed by his own government without a trial because of his preaching or because of his beliefs or even because of his membership in an organization with whom we have declared ourselves to be at war. president obama made the case today that anwar al awlaki was killed because of what he was doing.

because he said he was working all the time to kill people. >> but when a u.s. citizen goes abroad to wage war against america and is actively plotting to kill u.s. citizens, and when neither the united states nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot, his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a s.w.a.t. team. that's who anwar al awlaki was. he was continuously trying to kill people. >> these new factual allegations about what awlaki did are part of the case the government is now making for why it was okay to kill him. are these new factual allegations true? joining us now is jeremy scahill, national security correspondent and author of "the new door stop" available at your

local book shop. "dirty wars," film maker of "dirty wars" premiering in select cities across the country june 7th. jeremy, thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> those factual allegations are part of an important political argument about why that targeted killing was okay. what do you maybe of those factual allegations? >> it was really interesting today, because the president also said that if he had the opportunity, he would have detained and prosecuted anwar awlaki. if that's true, why didn't they seek an indictment? why not bring into a court of law, seek his extradition, and if you can't get his extradition, all sorts of options available. they tint even try. so none of the allegations against awlaki have been proven. haven't produced any evidence, except for from the attorney general and now assertions from the president. for much of the past 600 days, an awlaki died 600 days ago, his case has been litigated posthumously. it's about who we are as a

society. how we treat the most reprehensible of our citizens says a lot about who we are. if we had that efforts evidence against him, why couldn't we uphold the rule of law. almost no one talks about this. the first time we know the u.s. tried to kill anwar awlaki before the underwear bomb plot. they tried to kill anwar awlaki december 24th, 2009 before any of this had taken place, before any of the things in the attorney general's letter. >> having been to yemen and spent time with the awlaki family, a lot of which is documented in the film, which is amazing, do you think it is feasible that had an indictment and extradition proceedings been initiated, that would have been a way too catch him? >> you know what's interesting, anwar al awlaki was in prison in yemen for 18 months, in part because of the request of the united states government. actually said, we want al awlaki kept for four or five years so young muslims stop being influenced. eventually the president was put under pressure and had to let

him go. there are cases where we have killed people in yemen where they could have been handed over to the united states in we had negotiated with their tribes. in the case of anwar awlaki, he was so deep underground, it would have been difficult to apprehend him. i don't know that we actually tried. the tribal leaders from his region told me that had he had repeatedly told the yemeni president, if you presents us with evidence that he is guilty of any of these crimes, we'll execute him ourselves. the head of the awlaki tribe told me, he told a liaison with the united states government, if you show us the evidence, we will execute him ourselves. >> the awlaki son revelation yesterday from attorney general eric holder, it had been known that awlaki's son was killed by a u.s. drone strike, the u.s. finally admitted yesterday, but said it was not a specific targeting. effectively admitting it was an accident. how does that affect the ongoing

case and the family's relationship? >> first of all, what i find amazing -- your previous guest, robert begins, when asked about awlaki's killing, he it, he said he should have had a more responsible father. harry reid said that not only anwar awlaki and khan killed september 30th, but if there were three americans deserved to be killed it was those three americans. and tried to get him to clarify, do you mean the 16-year-old kid. not a single member of the family is like anwar awlaki. his son was not anwar al awlaki and for someone like gibbs to say that or harry reid without putting forth evidence it implies the kid did something wrong. in is a normal goofy kid are hanging out with friends, no relationship to terrorism. >> does the admission he was not killed on purpose affect how the family is going to proceed in terms of their relationship with the u.s. government, getting recourse? >> well, you know, if we're doing these strikes and say they're targeted strikes and have satellite information, we should have known there were a group of teenagers having

dinner. one part of it. the other is, i find that phrase and i watched your interview with jay johnson, he wouldn't quite a it was accidental. perhaps it was a signature strike where they're going after a group of military age males, and they're hitting them. maybe there was someone nearby they had been tracking or been in a mosque. to me, it just opens the door to all sorts of theories. when you kill the father and then the son two weeks later, i think the looming question, how could this have happened? when i talk to a former senior administration official in on this process, he said that john brennan, when he was the senior adviser on home land security and counterterrorism, actually believed it may have been a direct hit. that he couldn't believe that it was a coincidence and ordered a review. when i called the white house to ask about that review, they said they wouldn't can comment and sent me their boiler plate statement that they send to all of us when we inquire about drone strikes.

to me how that kid was killed says a lot about who we are as a society. i think that family is owed an explanation and the american people are owed an explanation. >> jeremy scahill for "the nation" magazine, author of "dirty wars" and documentary of the same name. thanks. >> thanks, rachel. >> we'll be right back.

at the start of the civil war, the land that would eventually become arlington national cemetery was only owned by general robert e. lee, the southern general, you know, general lee. amazing story, super duper short version. the union army took general lee's property and decided to turn it into the arlington national cemetery. century and a half, and eight wars later, more than 250,000 men suspect women who have died in american conflicts are buried at arlington national cemetery. this afternoon, soldiers from the third u.s. infantry placed american flags in front of every single one of those graves. it's a ceremony that happens every year. they call it flags in. happens every year just before memorial day weekend.

they did the same thing for all 14,000 graves at the u.s. soldiers and airmens' home national cemetery across the river in washington. a remarkable undertaking. and a fitting reminder that the upcoming weekend is not just a three-day weekend where you get an extra day off work oh. as was the president's speech today, the united states has spent the last decade at war from which thousands of americans will never come home. the day for remembering all of the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country is this upcoming monday. the holiday is called memorial day. held every year on the final monday of may. thing about memorial day is this. it is not to be confused with veterans day. veterans day is the 11th of november. it's dedicated officially to the cause of world peace that is held in honor of the treaty signed at the end of the first world war supposed to be the end of the war to end all wars. it has not worked out that way. but veterans day is a celebration. veterans day is a happy celebration and a thank you to veterans who have served. that's in november. memorial day is different.