Administration never expected to be the same position of allies around the world accusing it of illegal activity frankly needs to go to the same effort now and the rules would be to say its not to stare at the treaty. This is too difficult to negotiate a treaty, but to agree on legal principles such as a country can use lethal force against a terrorist in another country whose threat and attack if that country is unwilling or unable to prevent that thread. In most cases around the world, the countries are able to prevent that thread. They can arrest the person. But in four or five countries, yemen, somalia, pakistan want to get countries around the world to acknowledge the United States right under International Law to use force to kill someone in another country who is posing a threat when it cant be addressed in another way. We can get there, but theyre just not going to agree to our position unless we go through Aggressive International legal diplomacy. Its a great kind of questions. And they are the likely position that some would take the point to this hearing and the debates in this country . Or have a hard enough time coming to terms with this idea that the very earliest stages of the potential that drones will offer. There have been a hard nut time coming to terms under our constitution and now well have a a broader discussion internationally and youll suggest doing so we should and should do . Im not sure we are quite at the point where the conversation can place. Is very difficult. The Administration Spent a long time trying to explain to people while it was lawful to detain people. Most other countries have been a minute, you cant hold someone without trying to. That is the basic elements of due process. This is much more aggressive. Theyre killing nonand so we need to work hard to explain if a country committed to the rule of law to other countries should look to us for our example why what were doing is in fact legal. Its important to have this hearing here, but we need to go on the road and explain my sleep under international rules. I thank the gentleman for the questions and the time is expired. The gentleman from florida, mr. Desantis is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Cinematical for your testimony. I guess i disagree with sure your essay showing the doj announced his essay on we save significant grounds, but they dont say they cant go beyond that or that theres going to be more otherwise. Do you all agree with the fact that they based their analysis not simply on the survey, the basically article to in article li authority that if he didnt have the aumf authority we can engage overseas . The administration would overstate the position that it has authority under article li to defend the country against an imminent threat. That leaves open the question, but to the extent tomorrow, hezbollah presents an imminent threat, though its totally outside the aumf, the administration would start you assert the authority as a matter of article li and a domestic level under articles two to counter that. If it was an imminent threat such as libya, no congressional authorization to get engaged in libya. And some of the things that aumf is important. Would you do with these issues in a civil context, the fact this congress has authorized that means a lot. I guess the logic of the analysis although it only applies in context. You do have to make analyses for different facts, so my question, we conservatives are trained to. No aumf for libya . It was an international coalition. If there was an american citizen to travel to algeria join the progadhafi army said it was a major durational leader preannouncing to libya were straight out of the persistent, but American Forces and allies. Based on the memo, dated it wouldve been justified justified or this provides justification to engage in that instance . The answer to the memo probably not because the person would not be a senior operational leader person eminent threat of violence to the United States. My question is the logic of what theyre saying, why is it so port if the aumf is not critical, al qaeda versus someone fighting gadhafi. Its very logical distinction distinction between those two if you dont think the bellinger is critical . This administration is relying only on the aumf. A lot of this water 12 years later how it could be all of those in Different Countries around the world who may have only been 10 years old in 2001 still falls under the aumf. Its a good set of questions as to whether this administration would remind the president Constitutional Authority to strike somebody who did not fall in the aumf. In addition to the authority arising, the use of force against al qaeda is lawful owners of their principles including the president president s constitutional responsibility and the inherent right of selfdefense. The question fna situation like libya for its intervention in choice probably didnt propose a threat to the United States. How does this remark apply to american citizens . Even then, suppose we had a regiment of Fighters Air Force base in libya, presumably if an american citizen is to algeria to take up arms on progadhafi forces, it involves an attack on u. S. Military forces who are involved in stationary. I agree with that. But not necessarily while attacked. Somebody across the border do with logistics. We havent talked a lot about International Law, it is very relevant whether what was true in libya was a noninternational Armed Conflict that would justify military force. You have domestic law problems and very Serious International problem city was not part of the larger part. May have some into that equates one of the oddities of the white paper and i think its a very ripe area to followup is exactly what work the word imminent is doing. Its not clear from reading the white paper whether the word imminent is in his tent to get over domestic constitutional hurdles, whether it comes to International Law or whether it is an attempt to get around domestic criminal prohibitions as an affirmative defense in criminal prohibitions or whether it flows and some other neat. Its simply there is an apparently selfimposed complain and its not clear what legal problem its designed to solve. Some of the questions you asked would be different depending what were the word imminent is doing. I talk about this in my written statement, but its an area with this committee pushing the administrations clarification. Thank you and a thank you, mr. Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Komar for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is an exceedingly tough it. We appreciate your being here today. Obviously the Justice Department folks are busy doing something more important than having oversight. I wish they didnt need it. All these issues are deeply troubling and i like my friend former judge ted poe, but the lever and due process. Were talking about an imminent attack is one of the issues and we had a lot of people who brought up the issue of how lucky he is killed in yemen, but i think its good to look at what it scenarios before those scenarios actually happy. We know how lucky that bears for staffers on capitol hill. We know he was probably not done in the United States. Can you foresee a time when someone like alawlaki on a hit as finishes registering in yemen and the dog is back in the United States . If there is concern that imminent attack yemen, could there be the same concerns . When would it then be possible for someone on the hit list, as alawlaki to be hitting the United States proper . Sera, the alawlaki case will someday be the subject of a truly wonderful book. Its a very complicated and interesting history. I think of him where row of hockey made it back to the United States, i dont think there is dispute about anybody have spoken to the proper way to handle and wouldve been for the fbi to arrest him and be prosecuted in a u. S. Federal court. My question is not about what was proper. It is about the possibility of someone on a hit list be done back in the United States. He was arrested in 2002 at Dulles International airport. He was arrested as you talk about, but its a very close to the Clinton Administration and worked with the Bush Administration and yet we find out he was involved in supporting terrorism internationally, surrogates arrested in noticing 23 years of prison. Im asking what could be the prospect that somebody get back in the country and from a political standpoint, their arrest could potentially, like 79 if he started talking about the people he worked with on capitol hill, the people he met with then work with obviously would be very politically very same. What if you have hypothetically someone working closely with the president. We know we had a number of a known terrorist organization he did in the white house last year, even as secretary napolitano is sitting where you are could not answer she even if i was happening when it is in the papers. By the time she gets to the senate, she said the check was feted three times. There were things that could end up high politically proving if somebody gets back in the 90s state, someone might look for a way to see they never testify. We are talking hypothetically, but i wanted to know the possibility Something Like that could have been. So thats my question. Sera come to nothing in white paper and attorney general speech with stress that would be lawful and i would hope underrated evisceration, republican or democrat faces such a situation would behave like patriots and proceed according to the law and the constitution and i would hope this committee in the event that did not have been considered under his impeachment power. And what could the Justice Department can to participate, then what . Refinement in contempt and it goes to the u. S. Attorney and its inhabitants as just happened last year . Any other comments from anybody else . This is a real issue because not everybody under political pressure xip treats. Is quite clear is unconstitutional safely because the capture would be feasible. He may still be part of an organization come a Senior Leader and al qaeda what have you. What if there imminent attack planned. He hopes that the situation had been yemen and the need to take them out. The time of the gentleman has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman in the gentleman from florida, mr. Garcia for five minutes. Grow quickly, thank you, mr. Chairman. What steps can the executive branch date to allow appropriate congressional oversight. And then i leave it to all of you. Will just go down the line here. I mean, one night in the administration has made to be more open in their legal analysis. But it is disappointing were happy to be the Second String to help you out, but i as a former Government Official think that it is incumbent upon this administration to go witnesses forward to explain and answer questions. Fekete, i do think the executive branch could work with congress to crack a narrowly tailored for them to specify circumstances in which an american can be targeted in the notice process to congress. That would be to maintain the executive executive branch could do to work with congress on narrowly tailored legislation that does not tie the hands of the president. I will call back of each dish of review point fit in all these cases were talking about an Armed Conflict and the gentleman from texas and South Carolina are no longer here, but were talking about a situation thats really inappropriate to insert judicial review to tie the president pants. No one wouldve ever suggested before the president could order an attack against a german american who was a highlevel german leader that one had to go to a judge before hand or after him to allow the germanamericans family to come and have a judge perhaps tie the president s hands. Active participation in oversight is critical, echo asserted that set on that point. Boras earlier how much can insist they had on procedural issues driving all this. We have consensus that would be useful for congress to express it was going do so as to what the subsidy balance of targeting an american not to be. If this initiative with feasibility standard, this can be addressed. I dont think we have consensus to what extent judicial role is either necessary or permissible. Im probably the one whos most in favor of a permissible role. Steve is most in favor another thing that we have underway abuse here. One thing the industry should continue just to talk more and more about what the internal procedures using actually look like. So starting with the president s speech at the National Archive in 2009 in particular the continuing through hiroko speech the following year in a series of speeches over the next three years relief, the administration talked a lot about the underlying nickel machine. Not at the level of granularity people want a nicer it would encourage them to be more granular on that score. To me, the biggest hole is not ethical hole. Its a procedural hold and it goes to the question congressman nadler and i were discussing before. Not the subsidy of content is who you can target. Theyve been pretty clear about that. Its what hurdles do you have to go through before you conclude somebody is in that basket at all. On this question makes it very, very little except to say repeatedly there are rigorous internal checks. But i would like to see them talk more about what this internal systems look like. Almost everything we know about it is the result of press coverage and leaks. Its time for them to a something substantial to say on the subject. Addon of russia back to my colleagues other than the most interesting omission is the lack of any detail in a procedural process. If their streets and side effects and intelligence led us to discover this hack should be kept classified, thats one thing. I am by the bureaucratic process was undertaken at the executive branch in the hypothetical case is a matter of National Security. You can imagine the problem is we argue about everything. The idea we would put some kind of process forward. I fully understand your point and as a lawyer i think its necessary. The idea that process will be put forward to be analyzed in a vacuum but that the exigency of circumstances, some in there would be a debate i understand your wanting, but under the present climate its just almost impossible. I did theres a lot of merit to that point and i also think theres additional factor not about this body, but the litigation environment the is in. One of the problem within the bureaucracy, people are constantly worried about incremental effects on foia litigation that every disclosure has and i think every time you consider singing acts, you know youre going to get a brief filed the next day that says you can now confirm acts, we want to ask. We need to figure out whether theres some kind of safe harbor we could create that doesnt actively discourage the administration making disclosures, particularly to this body. Bbs so we should be working towards. Ive listened to johnson tapes were towards the end of the war he got in this crazy habit is what this cabinet deciding what the bombs were going to land. It is just an insane process when youre engaged in war. Im sure i dont have to make that point to all of you. Likewise, youve watched the insane process we partake of here, where we argue how many angels fit on a. Maybe you putting forward a process event would be acceptable if the president would engage in that, to be doing an argument for france on the right to look at all the due process these guys get. And a point side, thats not enough due process. Of course the whole point of this business, which these are enemies of our country. We hope that someone is elected from our side or the other side that they use discretion of their office, which in this area tends to be pretty broad and more time with all the merit youd expect someone who serves in that role. Gentleman can you thank you for your fighting for these issues. Its important. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. I think gentleman in the chair is pleased to recognize mr. Collins for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I think what is interesting is i agree with much of them in the media argue about angels on top of a. But we cant argue anything because justice chose not to show a good day for 50. They came, had an opportunity instead of engaging within the confines, they chose to take a pass. They chose not to come again. Its interesting your comments at the push of to me as my grandmother used to tell me, and if you criticize someone to hurt you might be their position one day. Its amazing whats happened now. What has been set on several occasions really highlights that. I believe the administration doesnt want a definition of imminent threat because at that point they have to define what is it going to be applied in the area . You dont want a feasibility of capture. I would tend to disagree if they were in the United States they can always fall back on feasibility and that would exempt them. Im not so sure thats true, not in our society today. As we look at this, i do have the distinct concern of what is how long this white paper depended on his whole determination. How long do you feel how long can this Administration Keep this argument . How long will this last, especially when you shut down the war in iraq, getting ready to move out of afghanistan and as someone whos up in this area , and a brief answer, how long can they depend on this . The next haircut a couple years ago my colleague mr. Bellinger wrote an oped and mr. Transform myself just this week published a paper arguing that growing threats beyond aumf is making up for imperative Congress Look at