it seems to me that if somebody marries a united states citizen, gets a job offer after they have this legal status, they can find a pathway of their own for permanent residence and maybe ultimately citizenship. to create a special pathway for citizenship for someone who is violating the law and in the country illegally, that would give them a different priority, a different status than people who are going through the usual processes, which seem to me to be something that would be very much closely discussed and debated as a part of this immigration process. >> just to be clear, sir, it sounds like you are trying to make sure there is not the special ways to get in, jump ahead of the line. if the people who are currently in line to get their residency, if they are processed, are you then open to allowing the 11 million who are here illegally to getting in that line? >> i am open to working on finding a way where we can find a legal status for these people. i am thoroughly knowledgeable that we are not going to be able to write this bill on this program, or any other media outlet.[laug

united states. it's victims include united states citizens, as well as foreign born nationals, it affects women, children, men. >> if you suspect a case of human trafficking call the resource center hotline. that number is 888-373-7888. >> the president honored a university of baltimore professor this week for how she lives her life. >> she was left disabled after she was hit by a car and roosevelt shows us it's not hard to see why she got the attention of the commander and chief. amazing lady. >> incredible. just ask yourself this question. if you couldn't walk anymore how would you live? if you asked janice she will ask you how you couldn't live. >> it doesn't define who you are. >> reporter: just because your legs won't carry you doesn't mean you can't wear a cute pair of shoes. in 1984 a distracted driver left janice with a shattered spine. she said though rehab and pt were available there was little that dealt with the problems that women had to face so she made something available. >> i held my first support group while i was still in rehab with the halo ono my head. a trach, just removed it but ri

after that the united states state department and embassy wanted to evacuate all united states citizens out of pakistan saying it's dangerous here but i had a lot of work to get done so. i called my wife and asked her what should i do and she said stay there with the people you love. finish up your work because you need to be over there right now. and when i was in pakistan after 911, everywhere i went i was touched by outpouring of empathy and hospitality. i remember a poor elderly widow that brought me five precious eggs and pushed them in my palm and said bring these back to the widows in new york suffering. this is all i have to share with them. i was invited for prayers of piecen the mosque and every whether i went people apologized even though they didn't have anything to do with it. finally it came time and i went back and when i got to corefa, hangele had passed away. i went to his grave and stood there look at his box in the ground and thought, how can i go on, this man had become my father, mentor and guide. he told me to sit down and be quiet and take a bath and so many thing

citizen for electronic surveillance. according to the government, it is prohibited in the united states decides to target u.s. f its own legal views to protect its people from ongoing threats of attack from citizens overseas. in dealing with major figures overseas who hold american citizenship, the obama administration has confronted a slippery slope with two distinct bottoms. down one side allows government to do something without legal justification or oversight. on the other side is the government that is powerless to confront real threats to the safety and lives of its citizens while terrorist figures operate with impunity in ungoverned spaces. it's not enough to avoid sliding down one of these. with that as a background, let's consider the targeting power that the obama administration is not claiming with respect to americans overseas who affiliate themselves with the enemy. it is not targeting any such american citizen, only an american citizen that is a senior operation operational forces. it is not claiming the authority to target even such a senior operational terrorist if the capture is a feasible al

>> we have something that even president bush didn't do which is to order the killing of a united states citizen without clear evidence of an immediate attack. >> on wednesday the white house defended the program. >> the methods that we use are designed specifically to avoid civilian casualties. i think it's fair to say that far fewer civilians lose their lives in an effort to go after senior leadership in al qaeda. >> brennan is likely to face tough questions from members of the president's own party. democrat ron wind of oregon is one of the senators who pressed the white house to talk about its leagueness. he was threatening to delay brennan's confirmation process and wants to know about his role in the drone program. despite the pushback john brennan is expected to be confirmed as head of the cia. in 2009 he took his name out of consideration for the post after questions were raised about his views on enhanced interrogation techniques. this time brennan has already told lawmakers that while at the agency he raised objections about the policies privately. meanwhile secretary of defense leon p

it focused on you united states citizens. it said there is a legal standard that they are setting up, interpretations that seems to be at eyes to the way -- odds to the weighty country is set -- to the way the country is set up. everybody has rights against the attack. it is taking imminence as meaning it is about to happen. it is a much broader use. the united states could still use force. that decision is being placed -- we assumed it was the president -- but for high-level officials without checks and balances or due process. that person can decide to order the killing of a united states citizen. host: is the government's targeted killing program legal under the constitution? guest: we have seen this 16 page white paper that is a summary of a 60 page longer opinion. the attorney general gave a speech last year that laid out some of these things. i have some concerns about the program. in general, the legal contours that have been laid out are correct for international law and u.s. law. it is clearly correct that the u.s. g

germany should not become a testing ground for gas companies like the united states. >> citizens' groups have already mobilized. the opposition say they will block the government's legislation in the second chamber of parliament. >> all right, ever heard of a tech term or slang that you just did not get? turns out you might not be alone. >> definitely not. a new study in germany shows that young and old and beginning to live in parallel universes, as if they are simply speaking two different languages. >> it can often be a world of confusion, but it seems that at least sometimes family comes to the rescue. >> facebook, twitter, online forums -- the internet is second nature to young people, but adults find it hard to keep up. what was hit yesterday is out today. nearly 2/3 of adults survey say they struggle with the pace of change. around half do not understand use idioms and modern slang -- youth idioms and modern slang. 47% say they cannot relate to how young people feel with one exception. >> within families, things seem to work better and young people feel comfortable, but outside th

so the united states citizen and the immigration service handles all of these green cards application in one service center that relies exclusively on paper, without interviewing either of the alleged abused foreign national or the accused citizen. to this day, i am disappointed that antifraud measures not have been included in violence against women act. we can't allow a law intended to prevent abuse to be manipulated as a pathway to u.s. citizenship for foreign con artists and criminals. if we're truly concerned about helping and protecting the victims of domestic violence, we should include a provision that allows our immigration agents to hear both sides of the story when foreign nationals apply for a green card for alleging domestic violence by united states citizen. so my amendment obviously addresses this fraud. it would require an interview of the applicant and allow the government to gather other evidence and interview other witnesses including the accused united states citizen or legal permanent resident. before adjudicating the self-petition, the government would have to de

citizen we know the government killed. he was linked to plots against the united states so they killed him. therine 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 this environment, in a classified environment i can get more specific. >> the targeted killing of americans by the commander in chief, such as the cleric you mentioned, was successly marked for death and was kill. and when pushed to explain how an american can be deemed a threat when there's no spe

if usama bin laden would have been a united states citizen and the president of the united states woulddrone strike in pakistan that's the effective way to take him out. does anybody think we would have needed to have gone to a court to get that order. the answer is no. the double standard hereof course they were ready to haul off former attorney general alberto gonzalez and his staff in the international court in the haig as you mentioned because the waterboarding. and now drone strikes on american citizens and they're cautious how to respond. the president can have this ability, but they can't be abused. and the problem is the idea of rehe definition of the phrase imminent that was contained in that leaked memo. that was the problem because it's an elastic definition and that's causing the concern among both conservatives and those who would consider themselves progressive. >> i was on o'reilly, a year or plus ago, talking about this and about whether it was legal. and one of the things they need, if they can't prove that the person is an imminent threat. he can still do it was my leg

united states. so he was belligerent. in the al awlaki case, he's a belligerent to the united states. that's very different than having a united states citizene united states. they have the protections of the constitution here. >> all right. i want to ask you today, a big topic of conversation in washington, in the hearings you were in, and on the internet, this was, everyone was talking about the video that iran released. that it says is decoded footage from an american spy drone, that it claims to have downed more than a year ago. they broadcast this video in iran, they put it on youtube. john reid is the national security reporter for foreign policy. he says he analyzed the video, with he thinks it could be legitimate. do you think this is legitimate footage, because, obviously, this comes -- this is related to one of the most sophisticated piece of fighting technology america has. >> yeah, i always take it with a grain of salt. we have to make sure we're going to take a look at it. we'll have our experts analyze it from stem to stern. you know, iran has overinflated many things. they had missiles they said would go 1,200 kilometers. they

united states who are foreign? does it allow them to kill people within the united states who are u.s. citizens?here's no meaningful line that has been articulated. >> anwar al-awlaki's cell phone had more protections than his life. >> what do you mean? >> if we had wanted to target his cell phone, because he's a us citizen in a foreign place, the obama administration had to go to a judge in the foreign intelligence surveillance court and get an order authorizing the eavesdropping on his cell phone. if they want to kill him, they don't have to. so his cell phone's more valuable, has more protections, because of congress's action. congress gave that review to the court,and the president has to go through it. to kill him, they don't have to. this is the kind of thing we're talking about. >> that's right. the public narrative, i think, really is the government must -- trust president obama. the government must know what it's doing. so when these people died, there was probably a good reason for it. and you actually don't have to tell us what it is. we trust you. that's where democracies die. that's

non-citizens can shoot a united states citizen without having to go to a judge beforehand. there is review afterward, both criminal -- both a criminal and civil. i did not need the department of justice to tell me that. i also did not mean the department of justice to explain to me that in times of war, you deny meeting judge picking your targets for you. at a time of war, -- time of war, you do not need a judge picking your targets for you. there are two references in this memo where the target of a lethal operation, a u.s. citizen who may have rights under the due process clause of the fourth double-fourth amendment -- fourth amendment. if the fifth amendment attaches and the fourth amendment attached is -- attaches, the as a u.s. citizen who enjoy the full complement of constitutional protections? if not, why not? whichever law professor -- i would pick the one who gave me a bad grade in con law, but he is not here. would the eighth amendment applied? >> the background that this white paper is based on is critical to this question. >> i just want to know if a u.s. citize

an unfortunate but undeniable fact some of the threats we face come from a small number of united states citizens who have decided to commit a violent attacks against their own country from abroad. based on generations old legal principles and supreme court decisions handed down during world war ii as well as during this current conflict, it is clear that united states citizenship alone does not make -- does not make such individuals immune from being targeted. >> jameel jaffer, respond. >> it is not a question of immunity. no man is arguing that americans are internally opinion from the government's use of legal force. under what circumstances than the government used legal force is what is in question. those circumstances traditionally have been fined nearly, for good reason. now the government is creating an extremely broad category of people who can be targeted without judicial review before the fact, without judicial assessment after the fact. it is very dangerous. at some level, the people who have written this memo and exercising this authority in the obama administration must be convinced

gets very squeamish when you talk about somebody in the executive branch being able to put a united states citizenkill 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 republican president had done what the obama administration has done as far as the drone program is concerned. >> sean: i mean, that's a good point. because here obama with no real criteria is going to be the judge, juror and executioner and going to allow for the assassination of american citizens, there's no other term, we can't assassinate foreign leaders because these are the same people that complained bitterly and eviscerated george w. bush. my conclusion, all of these democrats not only owe bush a policy, but politicized war. i'm not against drone strikes, but we've got to have a criteria. i'm not against enhanced interrogation and they're the ones inconsistent. your reaction. >> you're exactly right if the fifth amendment due process clause means anything

unclassified white paper on the government's legal analysis of the use of targeted force against the united states citizenr operational leader of al qaeda, there's finally more information available to the public. i've been calling and others have been calling the vice chairman and i on the use of tar -- for increased transparency on the use of targeted force and the circumstances of which such force is directed against u.s. citizens and non-citizens alike. i have also been attempting to speak publicly about the very low number of civilian casualties that result from such strikes. i have been limited in my ability to do so. but for the past several years, this committee has done significant oversight of the government's conduct of targeted strikes and the figures we have obtained from the executive branch which we have done our utmost to verify confirm that the number of civilian casualty that is have resulted from such strikes each year has typically been in the single digits. when i asked to give out the actual numbers, i'm told you can't. now, i say why not? because it's classified. it's a covert progr

and what we're talking about here is killing united states citizens without any due process, withoutview based on the say so of one person. he may be someone that you trust right now. president obama. but this is a principle that's going to outlast his administration. so even if you trust president obama and i don't think anyone should be trusted with his power, that's why we have a constitution, that's why we have laws, even if you trust them, this is a power that outlasts them. >> bill: the phrase to me that i find the most troubling is this 16-page white paper right says that this is okay to send a drone to kill an american citizen overseas when "an informed high-level official of the u.s. government has determined." what i've been trying to find out and i tried to ask jay carney at the briefing, i did not get called on. who are we talking about here? who is this informed high-level official of the u.s. government? is it the director of the c.i.a.? is it the secretary of defense? is it the president? who is it? do you know? >> no. i think the assumption has always been it is the p

people and for the people--" a basic principle that is the foundation for governmt in the united states. most citizens see the close relationship between govement and the people... at the local level close to home. the mayor of a city or town represents the executive branch of local government. motion to second to approve recommendations of staff. please vote. the role of the mayor of riverside is both complicated and simple. you're involved in chairing meetings and being the official spokesperson for the city. in addition to the kind of formal things, i try to see problems, get people who can make some difference ing them together and say, "let's do something about this." [ narrator ] the city council makes the laws that govern the city. they represent the legislative branch of government similar to congress on a national level. i'm having some concern, not feeling comfortable about... what our long-range plan is at the sewer plant. what we'd like the opportunity to do is to review the report, have the different departments look at it and come back with the council in the second week of february. [ n

general, with al qaeda, leadership is, a continuing process of plotting against the united states and american citizens. plotting attacks against the united states and american citizens. i think that's fairly irrefutable. what you also have is the authorization for the use of military force by congress. >> shepard: the personal civil liberties union calls the document profoundly disturbing, quote, it's hard to believe that it was produced in a democracy built on a system of checks and balances. catherine herridge live in d.c. tonight. catherine, senators from each political party now demanding more droning documents, right? >> that's right, shep. this letter is the most forceful warning to date that lawmakers may stall or even block mr. obama's nominee to run the cia. white house counter terrorism advisor john brennan unless the senators get good cooperation from the administration like providing the secret legal memos, quote: congress and the public can decide whether the president's power to deliberately kill american citizens is subject to appropriate limitations and safeguards. republican senator s

our children, united states citizens. >> brad dennis runs rescue and recovery for klaas kids, the national organization dedicated to saving missing children. he says shauna's case shows the alarming growth of the disappearance of american kids, an estimated 300,000 forced into prostitution in the u.s. each year. >> it's happening in every major town, every little suburban area, every rural area. it's happening all over the united states. >> it happened when shauna began an innocent friendship with a new girl junior year in high school. >> it was a girl i went to school with. i met her through ged classes and she was a really good friend. >> shauna says that girl, a 16-year-old we'll call cathy, worked hard to gain shauna's trust and within months a deep friendship was born. >> we would always talk in class. i would always tell her, "me and my mom are arguing again, of course." >> it was my gut instinct as a mother to keep shauna away from her. >> shauna's mother lisa said from the start, her daughter's fast friendship with kathy made her uneasy. >> when i first met her at school when i pic

citizen. the fact of the matter is i do believe that the president of the united states as the commander in chief has the authority to take out a u.s. citizen who has taken up arms against the united states. the phrase imminent is what has everybody and justifiably so. >> judge jeanine: i think that the white paper talks not just about the president. the white paper talks about the high level official of the u.s. government who can make this decision. >> i think that the executive branch has to be restrained. i think you can't have people especially when it is an american citizen being deprived of their life without some form of due process. it is a complicated issue and we have to learn more. i think in the last 72 hours we learned more about the drone policies of the obama administration which is very threatening in a lot of ways and very troubling and we need to find out more about it. second in addition to what jay said what i'm very concerned about is the lack of transparency. this has been going on for years. we as citizens in this country have is a right to know what our government does in

united states system. -- the traffickers were convicted and deported. if she became a united states citizen. she has a certificate saying she is a citizen. in addition to our investigatory authority for investigating domestic human trafficking here in united states as well as assisting in overseas prosecutions, we have presence of in i.c.e. in 40 nations. 72 nations have dhs personnel. we can get a short-term continued presence of through i.c.e. the visas can lead to citizenship. her story tells us that it is ordinary citizens that we need. we need law enforcement and everyone to understand the science and indications of human trafficking. i want to tell you about a few of the partnerships that dhs has created. i want to leave you with a thought. the core of the blue campaign is partnership. we need partnerships. we need your ideas for those partnerships. some partnerships have been already created was state and local law enforcement. we created online training so they can get it certified to continue education. we have been focusing on first responders said they have the necessary education.

>> well, simple fact of the matter is, does the bring think that the united states is-- and the united states citizens over ten years, does anyone realize that 1.1 trillion is what our fiscal deficit was in 2012? so that was our shortfall one year. stuart: i've got two seconds. do you care if we get the spending cuts? do you care. >> the market knows it's not going to happen. the politicians will dance around it and spending cuts aren't going to happen. they'll find a deal. >> tres stay right there. gold perilously close to below 1600. right now the dow industrials are off and running for another day and we open from 14,035, we're down just a fraction, we're expecting a pretty flat opening. i've got a loser for you, right as we get going here, that's toll brothers, and nicole-- >> hi, stuart, we're taking a look here at toll brothers and came out with quarterly numbers and came out well below the analyst estimate and as a result, you're seeing it selling off on a day where we've talked about housing and improvement in housing over the last six months and we certainly see that, but toll brothers too mu

and so i don't see myself as much as a citizen of the united states, or a citizen of costa rica. i just see myself as a citizen of the planet earth. and the more you go out and fly in space, the more you realize that, you know, this little ball is really our home, and that we are all really in it. and all these borders that have been drawn, you know, are really sort of irrelevant at this point. there is a saying that one of my heroes, john young, often says, that when you are on your way to mars, you're going to spend most of your time looking out the window at this one little point of light that is the place where you came from, and this other little point of light which is the place that you're going to. and he says this is going to redefine loneliness. and i think he's right. >> hinojosa: oh, my god, that's extraordinary. i remember, you know, just... we were talking off set about what it does to you as a human being-- again, and i love the fact that you're like, "i'm not a citizen primarily of any one place, but of this planet"-- what it does to you to have that distance, how

concern is that if that american citizen is in theater, is in afghanistan or was in iraq or the theater of operation where there is active hostility going against the united states and there's american citizen, you know, in the mountains of afghanistan, then i think that policy makes sense. >> greta: all right. >> and if that person is here in the united states, obviously, we shouldn't be able to kill an american citizen here in the united states, you know, because of that suspicion and i would have a much higher threshold of doing so in countries outside of the theater of operation. >> let me give you some examples. a 16-year-old american whose father was a terrorist, but he was not in yemen. now, that's not, that's not afghanistan, that's not iraq. >> right. >> greta: there have been protests against the united states there, but protests against the united states in europe and i mean, in paris and in london over time. there are protests against america in lots of places. yemen is not a war zone. not like afghanistan. >> no, i would agree with that and to me, that would come down to, okay, what alternatives do you have? and if that 16-year-old, first off how go

now street cameras and other kinds of surveillance across the united states giving citizens the feeling of having less and less privacy but it seems what you've done in the past also. it won't be forgotten the library of congress is now creating a database of all tweets ever posted or half finished through the streets of new york to find out where the government is once again showing too much interests in the personal and private lives of its people. the library of congress announced that it's storing our tweet is this just another method of surveillance or is it a way of archiving the times this week let's talk about that did you know that our government is starting to store all of our tweets they're archiving them in the library of congress not surprised you're not surprised by that now why not they're quite everything are you ok with that no absolutely not so what do we do about it you know i don't know because they're doing a lot of other stuff that they should be doing like killing people across the world but you know there's only so much we can do i think so our tweets are kind of

now street cameras and other kinds of surveillance across the united states giving citizens the feeling of having less and less privacy but it seems what you've done in the past also won't be forgotten the library of congress is now creating a database of all tweets ever posted laurie huff and esther to the streets of new york to find out whether the government is once again showing too much interests in the personal and private lives of its people. the library of congress announced that it's storing our tweet is this just another method of surveillance or is it a way of archiving the times this week let's talk about that did you know that our government is starting to store all of our tweets they're archiving them in the library of congress not surprised you're not surprised by that now why not they're quite everything are you ok with that no absolutely not so what do we do about it you know i don't know because they're doing a lot of other stuff that they should be doing like killing people across the world but you know there's only so much we can do i think so our tweets are kind of