until i get an answer whether you can kill an american citizen in america, in america, that's what wyden asked, can you kill an american in america with only the president's word and he never answered the question. i will demand an answer to that question. i think it's very unseemly that a politician gets to decide the death of an american citizen. they should answer about the 16-year-old boy, al alawaki's son that was killed in a separate strike. they've never answered that. >> right. >> i think you should be tried for treason. if you're an american citizen and go overseas and take up arms, i'm probably for executing you, but i would want to hear the evidence, have a judge and jury. it can be fairly swift, but there needs to be a trial for treason, the president, a politician, republican or democrat, should never get to decide someone's death flipping thrash flash -- through flash cards and saying do you want to kill him? i don't know. let's go ahead and kill him. >> a question for john brennan at the cia and yes for the other two? >> i haven't decided really. hagel has been really stru

targeting an american -- an american citizen and killing an american citizen and we see that the use of drones widely approve by the american people and there hasn't been much until recently out of congress. why do you -- how do you account in the difference in the reaction? are they entirely separate? is that a curious thing? >> how about politics? >> i'll go for that. and in what way? >> i think by a certain point, virtually nothing president bush did was going to win approval by anybody. and -- and anything he did was condemned from the surge to various other things, and i just think that that certainly plays a part in it. and particularly a lot of our political leaders have no problem talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to issues like these. >> what's your biggest concern post 2014 about afghanistan's future? >> i think it's very important that we maintain some kind of serious residual presence in afghanistan for training of the afghan forces and for counterterrorism. i think that kin of residual presence is absolutely critical. first of all to signal the afgh

you are talking about american citizens here. you cannot throw american citizens in jail indefinitely or fascinate them or execute them without trial just based on intelligence. intelligence can be wrong. weapons of mass destruction. on an international level are we talking war here or assassination. the international law is all over the paper. you have 40 countries developing armed drones. what happens when china and iran start using armed drones of the the -- armed drones. it is a huge threat to america. >> she feels strongly, jonathon, much more strongly than i do. i was thinking about the chinese food i am having later. >> buy american. >> a lot of people were talking about the assassination of american citizens. to me they are not american citizens so i don't care. >> i i am not overly concerned. there is no chance of a drone being used there. >> i agree with patrick. the left utterly failing to condemn obama as they would have done had this been carried out. there are members of the right i think patrick who are going after

bush ever did this killing people with the drones but killing american citizens whout due process as those who have no respect, shame on you. >> george orwell wrote animal farm the famous phrase some page are more equal than others may be some citizens are more equal than others. lou: joe biden referring to the public's right purses a citizen's right to, this is nasty. >> a collectivist mindset they don't see us as individuals as a collectivist society redistribution of wealth let me take your money and give it to someone else. >> socialism? collectivism. >> may be a community organizer. [laughter] spirit the constitution gave power to the people and the people gave the power to the government but this administration thinks they are the government and have lou: back with a few comments from the a-team, jedediah your thoughts. >> i'm not so sure a free society survives when obamacare passed i started to worry, you can mandate someone has to have health chunks, -- insurance, i saw slippery slope i'm worried. >> i agree. vice president of u.s. said that president should have power to man

bush ever did this killing people with the drones but killing american citizens without due process asawyer i think those who have no respect, shame on you. >> george orwell wrote animal farm the famous phrase some page are more equal than others may be some citizens are more equal than others. lou: joe biden referring to the public's right purses a citizen's right to, this is nasty. >> a collectivist mindset they don't see us as individuals as a collectivist society redistribution of wealth let me take your money and give it to someone else. >> socialism? collectivism. >> may be a community organizer. [laughter] spirit the constitution gave power to the people and the people gave the power to the government but this administration thinks they are the government and have are the government and have the power did you know not all fiber is the same? citrucel is different- it's the only fiber for regularity that won't cause excess gas. it's gentle and clinically proven to help restore and maintain regularity. look for citrucel today. i work for 47 different companies. well, technically i

our constitution gives every american citizens, guarantees due processes to every american citizen. you can't just be accused of something and executed summarily on the spot by any government official in this country. now, the justice department says we can do that if you are on foreign soil. >> one quick comment to throw in from someone on twitter that goes by the handle nrahater. we should address george w. bush for starting all of this. >> he got away with this and now president obama is using drones under the same authority at least. i am not saying we ought to arrest him. i am saying, we ought to be asking the kind of tough questions that we are asking today. and that reporters were asking yesterday at the whitehouse press briefing. you know, i bet you who will has a good take on this. eliot spitzer. we will talk to him neck on the "full-court press." >> on your radio and on current tv this is "the bill press show." [ music ] the sweatshirt is nice and all but i could use a golden lasso. (vo) only on current tv. iq will go way up. (vo) current tv gets the converstion started we

al-awlaki is by not an american citizen by where anyone in america would be proud? >> he was part of al qaeda, and it was his determination to kill americans on behalf of al qaeda. >> thank you. is it true that in the last four years the fbi has arrested 100 people, either planning, conspiring, or trying to commit a terrorist attack on this nation? >> yes, they have arrested a lot of people. >> that is because of good, sound intelligence. i think what people forget is that they will kill us if they can and it is extraordinarily difficult if you cannot get into where they were hiding. would it have been possible to have arrested mr. al-awlaki where he was in the yemen? >> we work very closely with yemenis to see if we can arrest individuals. if we can, we want to do that because it is valuable for us. any actions taken in concert with the yemeni government are done in terms of any types of strikes we might engage there with them, are done only because we do not have the ability to bring those individuals into custody. >> thank you. my time is up. senator chambliss? >>

the indefinite detention of american citizens is a very serious and disturbing notion so surely americans have heard about one of the greatest threats facing their first and fifth amendment rights well breaking the set producer manual rob lowe his. streets of new york to find out just how much people really know about the n.b.a. take a look. what is the n.b.a. it sounds innocuous enough i mean it's a budget act but it's a budget with a very important clause one that has tremendous implications for the civil liberties of american citizens. outside the second circuit court of appeals in new york demonstrators arrived to lend their support point it's in a case against the n.b.a. plaintiffs that ultimately represent the first races of countless civil liberties activists and their message is clear that any military detention of american citizens without due process is both illegal and unconstitutional so i'm outside the thurgood marshall courthouse where supporters for the plaintiffs against the n.b.a. case are right there behind me but we're going to ask them passers by to see how many people

ten american citizens without due process while the lawyer lawsuits made plaintive as journalist chris hedges the case is also being fought by revolution through founder pandering bolen pentagon papers whistleblower daniel ellsberg author noam chomsky and many others yesterday i heard the second round of oral arguments against the white house is that healed to a decree made by a judge who agreed with the plaintiffs on the n.b.a. is on constitutionality so today you'll see my exclusive interviews with the plaintiffs and more so stay tuned for a very important break in the set of. looking for a secure future ever seen anything like. this . the indefinite detention of american citizens is a very serious and disturbing notion so surely americans have heard about one of the greatest threats facing their first and fifth amendment rights well breaking the set producer manual rob lowe hit the streets of new york to find out just how much people really know about the n.b.a. take a look. what is the n.b.a. it sounds innocuous enough i mean it's a budget act but it's a budget with a very importan

dealing with drone strikes last night the obama administration's legal justification for targeting american citizens abroad was leaked to the press the details ahead. and the wheels on new york city buses are not going round and round that's because the drivers are on strike demanding better pay and employee protections will tell you who's being thrown under the bus while the workers continue their walk out. in a good bye for internet prodigy a solemn promise from those left behind to fight for internet freedom hundreds gathered on capitol hill last night to remember the life and legacy of aaron swartz our t. was there and will tell you who also was. it's tuesday february fifth five pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our team. we begin today taking a look at drone strikes targeting american citizens a confidential justice department memo just released reveals the legal justification for the government to conduct these strikes perhaps the most controversial part of the memo is the government does not need clear evidence to justify a deadly attack here's a piece of what what's

the indefinite detention of american citizens is a very serious and disturbing notion so surely americans have heard about one of the greatest threats facing their first and fifth amendment rights well breaking the set producer manimal rob lowe hit the streets of new york to find out just how much people really know about the n.b.a. take a look. what is the n.b.a. it sounds innocuous enough i mean it's a budget act but it's a budget with a very important clause one that has tremendous implications for the civil liberties of american citizens. outside the second circuit court of appeals in new york demonstrators arrived to lend their support point to this in a case against the n.b.a. plaintiffs that ultimately represent the frustrations of countless civil liberties activists and their message is clear that any military detention of american citizens without due process is both illegal and unconstitutional so i'm outside the thurgood marshall courthouse where supporters for the plaintiffs against the n.b.a. case are right there behind me but we're going to ask them passers by to see how man

the indefinite detention of american citizens is a very serious and disturbing notion so surely americans have heard about one of the greatest threats facing their first and fifth amendment rights well breaking the set producer manual rob lowe hit the streets of new york to find out just how much people really know about the n.b.a. take a look. what is the n.b.a. it sounds innocuous enough i mean it's a budget act but it's a budget with a very important clause one that has tremendous implications for the civil liberties of american citizens. outside the second circuit court of appeals in new york demonstrators arrived to lend their support point it's in a case against the n.b.a. plaintiffs that ultimately represent the frustrations of countless civil liberties activists and their message is clear that any military detention of american citizens without due process is both illegal and unconstitutional so i'm outside the thurgood marshall courthouse where supporters for the plaintiffs against the n.b.a. case are right there behind me but we're going to ask them passers by to see how many pe

remember how most of the country reacted when president bush declared the authority to hold american citizens, detained in the u.s., most of the country said, you cannot be serious. you're going to treat the united states as part of a battlefield? you're going to detained americans inside the u.s.? and now the obama administration, if you accept the memo on its face, except a briefing paper on its face, the obama administration is making a greater claim of authority in some ways. they are arguing the authority to kill american citizens has no geographic linked -- line. >> i wanted to turn to comments made by john brennan, now the pick for cia director. he made these comments last may and publicly confirmed that the united states has used drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. >> president obama believes it done carefully, deliberately and responsibly, we can be more transparent and still ensure our nation's security. so let me say it as simply as i can. yes, in full accordance with the law and order to prevent terrorist attacks on the united states in to save american lives, the united

american dozens working with terrorists. >> these strikes are legal. they are ethical and wise. >> reporter: the memo originally obtained by nbc news says killing a u.s. citizen a senior operation leader in al qaeda or an associated force is lawful under three conditions: the suspect is engaged in planning operations to kill americans even if no specific attack is imminent, it's not possible to capture the suspect before the attack, and the operation follows applicable laws and war principles. but some on capitol hill are concerned the policy violates the constitutional right of american suspects to a trial by jury. on tuesdayed white house press corps pushed obama officials on the issue. >> this is giving legal justification for killing american citizens without any trial, without any evidence. >> i would point you to the ample judicial process for the idea someone who takes up arms against the united states in a war against the united states is an enemy and therefore could be targeted accordingly. >> reporter: so far there is one known case of an american being targeted with a drone strike. anwar was killed in 2011. >>> coss

government's role for when drone attacks can be launched to kill american citizens. the justice department that the government does not need evidence that a specific attack is imminent. more lenient standards then publicly known for drug -- drone attacks. here is steve kingston. and under what exact circumstances will the u.s. government authorized the killing of an american citizen abroad? but the answers are here. it is a 16-page memo written by the lawyers of the justice department, as requested by congress. it is a document that is not strictly classified, but it was not meant to become public. what these lawyers do here is justified is targeted killing of american citizens who have worked with or parts of al qaeda and expense various groups. that is the justification if they pose a an immense threat to america. it provides a very elastic definition of what is an imminent threat. you do not need to know this is a bit of who, what, where, and when of a particular plot against america. it is enough for these individuals to be linked to al qaeda because of a continu

they can just kill american citizens.he document reportedly does not clarify exactly what defines an imminent threat. remember back in 2011, the feds said a drone strike took out the american born cleric awlaki, the first u.s. citizen we know the government killed. he was linked to plots against the united states so they killed him. katherine is live in washington. so we're clear, they can kill an american citizen with a drone, no lawyer, no charges, no conviction. >> no nothing. >> shepard: nothing. >> okay. that's at the heart of this. it's an executive branch assessment of whether an american citizen is an al qaeda leader and whether they pose an imminent threat. when fox news asked the attorney general to explain the difference between an imminent and ongoing threat, eric holder resisted providing details, citing classified material, even though this leaked memo is unclassified. >> i can't necessarily get into the weeds. you can't examine the terms without having a reference to the facts, and i'm not in a position, in

pressing one you know the question of whether the white house or the executive branch can kill american citizens that is on everybody's mind. but the the white house has killed three americans as part of its drone program it has killed. two thousand nine hundred ninety seven others it's killed approximately three thousand people all over the world. with the drone program nobody is really asking about those people and what are the what kind of decisions are being made there so i look at i look at the question of whether. the active branches the americans accused of terrorism as a starting point for a much larger debate. in addition to. the drones have also been used to kill militants and terrorists so what the administration has touted the use of drones as being very successful and being able to conduct their their foreign policy goals. and because of this there's a lot when it comes to the public polling there's a lot of support for these your own than for drone warfare so do you think tom that because there is this public support that this is kind of not putting as much pressure on brennan on t

dealing with drone strikes last night the obama administration legal justification for targeting american citizens abroad was leaked to the press the details ahead. plus it's clean abundant and also a little dangerous but the risks may not stop one nuclear plant from powering up i had a look at how a company is jumpstarting its nuclear program and the chain reaction it could cause . and pushed to the limit because the u.s. military lacked the resources it needs to fight al qaeda in africa it looks like it's becoming more dependent on local african forces to do with dirty work i'll tell you why. it's tuesday january fifth february fifth excuse me four pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching our t.v. we begin today taking a look at drone strikes targeting american citizens a confidential justice department memo just released reveals the legal justification for the government to conduct these strikes perhaps the most controversial part of the memo is that the government does not need evidence to justify a deadly attack here's a piece of what's now being called the white papers obt

we have killed four american citizens with drones. look at the overall number of attacks. there have been 400 of these drone attacks, most of them under the obama administration with absolutely no transparency. this has killed roughly 3,000 people and according to the stanford university report that was just issued, some 800 of them may be civilians including women and children. it is finally time that congress the senate this week finally stop being brain dead and started challenging this the administration on its patently absurd explanation how this legal a, ethical and wise. at this point we're going to have the debate because barack obama has been doing it. >> jon: so for president conducting, it's tough for the liberal press to cover? >> it's after the fact, after the election. you are now starting to see criticism ratcheted up by the likes of the far left mother jones magazine and even the "new york times" editorial wrote in this week. it brought back, said the writer memos written by george w. bush to justify illegal wiretapping, kidnapping abuse and torture. now, t

it is a kind of handbook for lethal power against terrorists, even if they are american citizens. abc's chief white house correspondent jonathan karl tells us about the news today. >> reporter: by one count, president obama has already used unmanned cia drones to strike more than 300 suspected terrorist targets, even more than his predecessor. but today, we learned just how much authority the administration believes it has to kill, without trial or evidence, suspected terrorists, even american citizens. a newly disclosed justice department document says american citizens tied to al qaeda can be killed, if, "an informed, high-level official believes the target poses an imminent threat." but the document says it "does not require the government to have clear evidence." case in point, anwar al awlaki, an american citizen and top al qaeda leader, linked to several terrorist attacks. he was killed in a 2011 drone strike. human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. and -- >> justifies essentially a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and execu

if there was an american citizen who travel to algeria and joined the pro-gaddafi army and was a major operational leader in bringing arms into libya that would fight the resistance and american forces and our allies, based on how you read the memo, to you think this provides justification to engage an american citizen in that instance? >> under the memo, probably not. under your facts, the person would not be a senior al qaeda leader. >> if they limited it to that, why isn't so important? if the aumf is not critical, is there a logical distinction between those two if you to not think the aumf is critical? >> there are a lot of us who wonder how it can possibly be that all of this use of force in countries around the world against people who may have only been 10 years old in 2001 still falls under the aumf. it is a good set of questions as to whether this the administration would rely on the president's constitutional authority to strike someone who did not fall under the aumf. >> in addition to the authority of rising, it is lawful under the other principles of u.s. and internationa

proposition that at best that that millet militants don't deserve all the due process than an american citizen deserves that doesn't give us the right to go kill him though there is nothing that gives this president the right to go kill americans on foreign soil the authorization for military for use of military force is almost a joke if you look at it it's so a loser e. that says any high level official is that the president is that the cia director is that a political advisor can go after anyone an american citizen a political militant want any foreign soil is that mexico is it canada hell it could be texas or mississippi for all i know is long as there are in imminent threat no definition to any of this stuff at all and they talk about these things called the law of war principles have you looked at that what is it necessity proportionality distinction and humanity then it's a joke that listen what anybody who's gone to law school would look at that entire bill and say it's a loser or a garbage it's a loser a garbled up language and this president is a constitutional law professor and he kn

americans anymore. i don't regard them as citizens.emy combatants and they need to be treated like enemy combatants. >> i think that's what the raw is really. if you leave the united states and swear allegiance to a foreign power, you no longer are an american citizen and the law is pretty clear going back to the 1940s that an american citizen who becomes an -- swears allegiance to a foreign enemy loses his rights to citizenship and this really is an ugly situation. but i think you have to go ahead and do what the president is doing. i think this memo as loosely as it's written, and it goes on and on and on, touching all of the possible legal bases, i think it will stand up in court. it's not the best written thing. i have some misgivings about it, but you have to do what you have to do and it is legal. when al awlaki's father went to court to try to have his fame taken off the kill list, the judge threw the case off saying it was a political question, you can't interfere by a conduct of war by the president. that's the constitution. a

anwar al awlaki, an american citizen and top al qaeda leader, linked to several terror attacks. he was killed in a 2011 drone strike. human rights advocates say the justice department memo goes way too far. and -- >> justifies, essentially, a claim that the executive branch can be judge, jury and executioner. >> reporter: as soon as he became president, barack obama stopped cia tactics like waterboarding, which he considered torture. but this justifies outright killing of a suspected terrorist. how does dropping an bomb on an american citizen without any judicial review, any trial, not raise the very human rights questions or more human rights questions than something like waterboarding? >> the president understands the gravity of these issues. that's why he's committed to taking very seriously, both his responsibilities in this. >> reporter: the white house says the president's top priority has been protecting the american people in a way consistent with our values. but you can expect that his choice to run the cia will face sharp questions about this later this week at his con

government reserves the right to kill an american citizen based on a finding that they present an imminentt to american national security and oh, by the way, we're' reinventing, redefining the term imminent so it means something other than an imminent defense. >> sean: and they can decide and manipulate it any way they want. senator reisch, what the white house is saying that these drone strikes against american citizens without any real criteria is legal, ethical and wise, but not water boarding which by the way we only used against three people. >> you know, sean, we're at the incipient stages of a new way of fighting war. they're going to be fought by using drones and as a result of that, legal questions come up. i think probably everyone gets very squeamish when you talk about somebody in the executive branch being able to put a united states citizen on a kill list. and having said that, we on the intelligence committee we review most of the strikes and so far, they've been accurate. they've done a good job at it. but having said that, i just can't fathom what would happen if a republi

and who knows if the president is an american citizen? who knows if the president is really not the president because he is secretly foreign? who knows if the president caused the deepwater horizon spill on purpose. >> using the crisis of this oil spill to try to promote his energy tax. and i've had numerous people all over the district question whether his poor response to this oil spill was purposeful so that he could promote his energy tax. i don't know. >> i don't know. maybe he is just letting that oil spill for political purposes, because he is a nazi and a marxist. who could know? the same congressman decided during the state of the union address in 2011 that he would not attend the speech in congress, but rather he would troll the speech on twitter. quote, you don't believe in the constitution, mr. president. you believe in socialism. that's what he was tweeting during the state of the union. he has declared nancy pelosi a domestic enemy against whom he is sworn to protect the nation. he has said that president obama is part of a

have to ask you is this do you think that because this man has more training than the average american citizen the average american suspect that it necessitates or that it makes any type of exception for the type of force that they are actually using to try to find this man. well that i mean it depends it depends i mean we're not sure if they're saying that they want to capture him there has been nothing from the l.a.p.d. that i know up saying that they want to kill him but because of the way they obviously like you said shot at those innocent people who looked nothing like him because they were driving trucks that look similar to his trucks although they really didn't look that similar there is good reason to believe that if they think they see him they will kill him and that's a question that we really i think that we really need to examine and consider whether that's ok because this man hasn't been that he just he's been charged with stuff today but you have to have a trial and. i mean when somebody is considered armed and dangerous if they do pose a lethal threat police are totally justifi

we begin today taking a look at drone strikes targeting american citizens a confidential justice department memo just released revealed the legal justification for the government to conduct these strikes perhaps the most controversial part of the memo is that the government does not need clear evidence to justify a deadly attack here's a piece of that white paper obtained by a.b.c. n.b.c. excuse me quote the condition that an operational leader present an imminent threat of violent attack against the united states does not require the united states to have clear evidence that a specific attack on u.s. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future so in place of clear evidence a high level government official has the authority to decide who poses a threat according to the memo meanwhile a bipartisan group of eleven senators are calling on the president to dish the details on what exactly the legal justification is for using drones and other means to kill american citizens earlier i was joined by scott horton contributing editor at harper's magazine i asked him to explain what