mr. awlaki's family did. there was a lawsuit on behalf of mr. awlaki and the d.c. court before the operation that ended terminating his life. it was dismissed on a series of procedural grounds. there was an attempt to do that. >> what recourse is there for someone who is on the list by mistake? >> the government suggested that if he wanted to turn himself in, they would oblige him. when it is public that the government believes it has the authority to kill a person, they could think to turn themselves in and contest it. >> is jill kelley the only method? >> this is not just about drones. it is used for any number of military hardware to conduct killings. >> handguns. >> it is not about drones per se. i make it easier for the government to conduct these operations than conventional technologies. >> is their rationale for killing them overseas? what if they are found in the united states? >> one of the critical considerations is the feasibility of capture. the federal government will never take the position that it is in feasible to capture an individual within the t

mr. al-awlaki's family could do was a lawsuit brought on behalf of mr. al-awlaki and the d.c.strict court before the operation that ended up terminating his life. that suit was dismissed by a belief judge bates on procedure president wasn't -- so the was indeed an attempt to do exactly that. >> well, what recourse is there for someone who's on the list by mistake? >> you know, at least in al-awlaki's case, the government, i do not service or to take this but the, suggested if you wanted to turn himself in they would oblige him. you know, so at least when it is both of the government believes it has the authority of kill a particular person presumably could seek to turn them thousand and contested but there is no procedure for that. >> is a drunken and the only method for telling? >> no. i think it's important to keep in mind this conversation is not about drones as such, that it's about use of any number of source of military hardware to conduct pashtun or the joint unmanned aerial vehicle, man, bomber, a tomahawk missile fired from a navy ship in the middle of a body -- i mea

mr. holder is right that the u.s. could have a target -- could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen anwar al-awlakid he continued to love -- to live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law al-awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore on long island in world war ii and were captured and executed. the country needs more senators who care about liberty. but if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he's talking about. well, mr. president, i watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote yesterday. i saw colleagues of mine who know better come to the floor and voice this same concern which is totally unfounded. i must say that the use of jane fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and i must say that she is not my favorite american. but i also believe that as odious as it was, ms. fonda acted within her constitutional rights. and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american polic

mr. paul: the way williamson describes awlaki was he was first and foremost an al qaeda propagandist. he was a preach and a blogger who first began to provoke u.s. authorities through the online bile that earned him the title the bin laden of the internet. was he an active participant in planning acts of terrorism against the u.s.? the f.b.i. did not think so, at least in the wake of 9/11 attacks. the bureau interviewed him four times and concluded that he was not involved. the defense department famously invited him to dine at the pentagon as part of the islamicic outreach efforts, and in 2002, he was conducting prayers in the u.s. capitol. throughout the following years, awlaki became a sort of al qaeda gadfly, dangerous principally because he was fluent in english and therefore a more effective prop gappeddist. it was not -- propagandist. it was not until the first obamas that awlaki was promoted by u.s. authorities from propagandist to operations man. you may remember the context. the obama administration had been planning to try 9/11 conspirators in new york city when the country

mr. holder is right. the u.s. could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen anwar awlaki had he continued to live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law, awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore in long island in world war ii and were captured and executed. the country needs more senators who care about liberty but if mr. pal wants to be taken seriously the needs to do more than pulling stunts that fire up kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he is talking about. well, mr. president, i've watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. i saw colleagues of mine who know better, come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded. i must say that the use of jane fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and i must say that she is not my favorite american. but i also believe that as odious was it was, ms. fonda acted within her constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american policy, and even may demonstrate against it, is somehow a member of an organization which

mr. holder is right, if the u.s. could have -- could have targeted, say, u.s. citizen anwar awlaki, had he continue ted live in virginia. the u.s. killed him in yemen before he could kill more americans. but under the law, awlaki was no different than the nazis who came ashore on long island in world war ii and were captured and executed. the country needs more senators who care about liberty. but if mr. paul wants to be taken seriously, he needs to do more than, quote, pull political stunts that fire up impressional libertarian kids in their college dorms. he needs to know what he is talking about. >>> well, mr. president, i've watched some of that, quote, debate, unquote, yesterday. i saw colleagues of mine who know better, come to the floor and voice this same concern, which is totally unfounded. i must say that the use of jane fonda's name does evoke certain memories with me, and i must say that she is not my favorite american. but i also believe that as odious also it was, ms. fonda had constitutional rights, and to somehow say that someone who disagrees with american policy a