hina? >> thank you, mike. and thank you to the bipartisan policy center for having this event and for inviting me. the spirit ofn the center with agreeing with a lot of what john bellinger has said. targeted killings program rate is profoundly important legal and moral policy question. right now the public debate, with respect to those questions is crippled, because we don't actually have a lot of the information we need in order to determine the full extent of where the program is being carried out, how , against whom, with what investigation, and what measures to prevent harm to civilians. let me also start with another point of agreement. often a straw man is created. the idea that people are against drones. some people may be. as a legal matter, i don't think drones are unlawful, but as a policy matter, they raise profoundly important question, because they are easier to use without risk to u.s. forces and may be able to be used in places where we are not otherwise at war, as has been explained to the amer

this was part of obama's plan. >> hina shamsi of aclu. former defense analyst, josh foust. thank you, really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> that is "all in" for this 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 firs

this was part of obama's plan. >> hina shamsi of aclu. former defense analyst, josh foust. thank you, really appreciate it. >> thank you.

yourand hina, just reaction to what phil laid out? >> i take a slightly different angle. one, a couple things about the debate are really not about -- we talk about drones. the problem is not the use of drones. people now start saying the problem is targeted killings. it is actually not the problem, targeted killings. with are in a real war, germany and japan in world war ii and we developed a weapon in which one could only kill a single person rather than engage him in that is wonderful. that is legal, that is good. it is not actually that targeted killings are bad. when lawful and legitimate, they can be good. beginsue here, and this to fit with what philip is saying, is that there is a fundamental disagreement around the world, which i experienced when i was a legal advisor, as to whether the united states really is in a war at all. we are about the only country in the world that believes we are in a conflict with al qaeda. i spent part through years as legal advisor in the bush administration engaged in the dialogue that was kicked off by the 9/11 commission, and one

this was part of obama's plan. >> hina shamsi of aclu. former defense analyst, josh

hina that we do focus on the idea of drones as a there is thee science-fiction quality to it. there is the aspect of, although there -- although they are not robots, that they are robots carrying out war. the deeper question is obviously how they are used and the idea of targeted killing or not so targeted killing in places where at least officially the united states is not. so that is what i have written about, how this way of war has become sort of the default way the united states does. it was begun by the bush administration, in overtime if you are looking at targeted killing killing, the bush administration went from primarily a capture strategy and interrogation strategy two, ther a few years, detention and interrogation program, especially with this cia, really started to tail off and the policy of killing started to escalate, and the obama administration came in in 2009 and has expanded in many ways. it has been i think the most important story, to understand how the obama administration sees this way of war, out has conducted this way of war. -- how it has conducted t

and the final point that hina has made are the international implications from a legal standpoint.i would expect any president to use any capability available to them at the time of an attack, but we do come to our senses as time goes on and realize that we have to rain this in, because we are a country of rule of law. thank you. >> please keep your responses concise so that we can make the questions possible in the remaining time. >> as i would expect from john, a great question. they really are good speeches, as far as they go, and i think they need to go farther to explain, for the multiple reasons you have heard those precise legal parameters, if they want to persuade other countries to go along with us. the administration has not felt that they need to go along with that. to constrain want the criticism on other countries using drones, we need to be extremely precise in what is lawful use of lethal force and what would be unlawful. i pity the poor state department spokesman who at any point this year, when china or russia uses a drone and the spokesman hasan stand up and they

but to me, and i've talked bout this before at the icas seminars here, the big hole in hina's not enforcement of u.n. sanctions has been its unwillingness to block or stop the air traffic between teheran and ping i can't think. we know that the bush administration made quiet overures to bejing about this in 2006 and 2007 but to no avail. nothing was done. e have the new reports of iran sending missile scientists, missile technicians and probably also nuclear experts to not only observe the recent missile and nuclear test but now to personal nantly station them in north korea. undoubtedly, they went to north korea from teheran, they obably refueled in the .eijing airport can we do anything to put more pressure on china to stop -- this would be my second question -- or is this simply a bridge too far given china's not only close relationship to north korea but also its close ties to iran? is this a bridge too far or are there things we can do to put more pressure on china to cut off this traffic and money is part of the traffic by the way? >> that's an excellent question. but the growing role o

of the public debt prioritized by this bill, foreign holders owns 22% of hina that. yield a minute and a half to another distinguished member of the ways and means committee, mr. mcdermott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, we haven't done anything in this house all week and here we are working on a plan how the government can default on its debts. that's what this is really all about. it reminds me of the derivation of the word bedlam. bedlam was a large mental hospital in the middle of london. it was really called bethlehem, but people locally called it bedlam. this is a policy that came out of bedlam and will create bedlam. if we don't pay our debts, we are going to create problems in our own country as well as in the world economic system. if you want to lose the united states dollar as the currency used by the world, start by not paying your debts. everybody will sa