it is not simply a political determination. >> brown: harold koh?i don't think either of the previous speakers read the speech that closely. what he said, quite frankly, was there is a particular enemy against whom we declared war in september 2001, al qaeda, the taliban and associated forces. we are fighting them and our goal is to defeat them. there are other people who are coming along who are dangerous also self-radicalizers, people involved in benghazi. and he said we're not at war with them. we can deal with them through traditional tools. so the challenge is, number one, how to end the first war, the one which we have declared, and secondly, how to not extend that war paradigm to everybody who comes along. he describes the way in which counter-terrorism against other new foes is much more like it was before 9/11. he's talking about ending the aberrational paradigm and shifting to a sustainable response that includes things like law enforcement tools and does not include things like guantanamo. >> brown: all right, all of this to be continued,

harold koh, a reframing, a we sd fit terrorism.that what we heard today, and did you think the president got it right? >> i think there were two important things. the first was that he made the speech at all. this is a time when lot of other things are going on. he could have avoided it. he not only owned it but he framed it and explained the strategy. he narrowed the war on terror to what we're really trying to do which is to defeat al qaeda, the taliban, and associated forces. and he denedhe role of guantanamo and drones within that as a tool. and he said both of them need to be disciplined, that drones need to be subject to clearer standard rules andore transparent and guantanamo needs to be closed. i think he did a very good job repositioning the policy back to his values. >> brown: pardiss kebriaei, i pick up first on the drone issue because that was put in this larger context. the president talked of being more transplant, but he also made perhaps his strongest case for their use. what's your respone? >> you kno i ink th it w

well i mean i think what obama's just trying to sell us on on drone strikes it's the argument that harold koh has been making which is we're going to strike you know the you know in his speech obama also talked about maybe we should be putting more money into into support but you know ultimately what the speech was about was trying to sell us on the drone strikes he's already he's already engaged in as the most humane option because we're not going to talk about nonmilitary options and so on that basis it's not clear that much is going to change anytime soon and finally marcin we have a short amount of time left but the president in the speech has said that there will be more transparency when it comes to drone strikes now the white house has not said anything in terms of this drone strike actually having taken place in terms of anime actually being killed so are we seeing that transparency or should we expect it in the future we're not seeing transparency what we're seeing is a list of a very fluid rules with some giant copy outs that you could drive you know twelve drones through and you kn

you look at him commentary is that honorable of the also you had harold koh who is the state department's legal adviser for four years who was on the leading critics of president bush became a part of the administration and signed off on these procedures he's out of the administration now gave a talk last week in oxford where he said we got to close guantanamo so it's. like you know where were these people when they were in the administration and we've got to stand up and do the right thing the president's got to close this and put an end to this chapter and before we get into how that can actually happen then take a closer look at the force feeding that's going on can you tell us any more details about about what's happening now that we've obtained these documents and i'll just hear right now this has been going on for some time in the hunger strike now is by far the largest in the longest that has gone on but it's been going on when i was chief prosecutor in two thousand and five we had detainees who were hunger striking in the procedure they go through this is same type procedure that

presented against him even if even if anwar locky is guilty of every leak that john brennan and harold koh and all these people cooked up even if he's guilty of every single thing. prosecuted charged with a crime demand is extradition we don't judge who we are as a society and how we treat the popular the rich the powerful how do you treat the least of your people the poor and the most reprehensible of your citizens so for me it's not about you know a lockie is some kind of a noble character he said things i found downright offensive and reprehensible he probably could have been indicted for something why not indict him so the question is when you have a president who won the nobel peace prize is a constitutional law expert by trade and is very popular among the liberal base saying we have the right to kill american citizens without due process or without even charging them with a crime we've crossed a line that you can't just walk back from after you've crossed it and the killing of a sixteen year old son this was a kid who i know that family very well who had a huge head of hair like an

withhave been grappling the issue through a number of officials -- john brennan, harold koh. others have issued a series of speeches generally explaining the program, the problem is -- and this is my real point here -- no other country in the world has at least publicly agreed with the legality of our drone program. that is not a good place for the united states to be. it may well be that there are a handful who are cooperating with us that believe it is legal or they would not be cooperating. but right now the united states is isolated as the obama administration has launched more than 300 drone strikes in four different countries, killing more than 3000 people, and the rest of the world is finding this very controversial if not unlawful. they have given the obama administration the benefit of the doubt for four years, but as we now go into a second term, i think they are now beginning to become increasingly restive, and the challenge for the obama administration, as it has been for us when we enter the second term of the bush administration, is now trying to convince the re