Page 16 - Enemy Force News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Deserves the rights of american? >> there are special rules of war -- >> are we at war? >> i don't think we are against a category of crime. >> i think a lot of people think we are. >> you know what, they're saying they're at war with terrorism. >> no, no, al qaeda. aren't they the sworn enemy of this country in the west, generally? >> we have a lot of sworn enemies and citizens that have different views and motivations. if we play the cesar-like role and send some citizens to a real trial and some to makeshift military tribunals, we've lost this war. >> you don't believe in killing them by dr...

Enemy combatant. you have to be part of an enemy force. i agree with the analysis that being part of al qaeda creates an eligibility. i don't think being part of general hatred of the united states is nearly enough. where i slightly disagree, there's a supreme court decision, the one you were referring to, chris, involving the nazis. one of whom was a u.s. citizen. the crimes were perpetrated to be for u.s. soil. bottom line, this is not a case for enemy combatants, and there so many horrible crimes committed. if we start throwing the constitution out, we're going to lose the real war for our ...

>> seven. >> steve: you were shot seven times. you were serving your country at that time. right? >> i was serving my country proudly at that time, yes. >> steve: and don't they give the purple heart to people who are either injured or killed while serving their country? >> yes. if you sustain an attack from a combatant or a supporter of a enemy force. >> steve: see, that's the part right there. clearly. >> absolutely. >> to me, and to you, major hassan was a terrorist, wasn't he? >> yes, he was. >> steve: when he was shooting, what was he yelling? >> allah akbar. >> steve: which means? >> god...

Administration about the transparency aspect of it than there was whether they would engage in a drone program. explain that. >> well, that's exactly right, and that comes up significantly in the case of anwar al awlaki, the american citizen and yemeni member of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula in yemen who we killed, the united states government killed. in that particular case the president really didn't have any qualms about going after him. he thought al awlaki was a senior member of an enemy force who was bent on attacking america and that it would be a lawful act of war. the real debate ...

President may use force against al qaeda and its associated forces, as detailed in this white paper, in defined circumstances, a targeted killing of a u.s. citizen who has joined al qaeda or its associated forces would be lawful under u.s. and international law, targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat against the united states. >> they are saying, trust us. we know what we are doing. we know where the legal boundaries are. we are never crossing them. we have a system where there's little oversight over the drone program. for instance, we don't know what constitutes an...