Stay updated with breaking news from Windsor case. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
means that you were able to do away with homophobia. that's not what happened with edi windsor's case, not what happened in other cases. homophobia still exists and we're witnessing that right now. >> my response to that, thomas, is i wish. i wish that winning either the windsor case or the other case would get rid of homophobia. i wish that there were courts that would get rid of racism and other forms of prejudice. that's obviously not going to happen. we're all human beings, we all have flaws. what is important in this case is the rule of law and the constitution. the judge has seen to it that's being enforced and that's what really matters. >> kim davis, though, as an american citizen, has taken the legal avenues that she feels she needed to to express herself about any religious concerns she has. i want to bring your attention robbie, a story in "usa today" about a muslim flight attendant says her airline fired her for refusing to serve alcohol. this is a practice that's
federal statute that restricted rights of individuals who wish to get married to the same person was demeaning and disrespected their relationship. it took away their constitutional rights. if you read what the supreme court said in that case there is really no other way for the supreme court to come out in the case that's up for argument on tuesday. the first part of that case is whether states have to recognize the rights of individuals who wish to get married in that stays. i think that will end the debate there. >> it does seem obvious you can see the federal government saying you've got to recognize this is the way it works. you don't think they'll draw a states line here? >> no, i don't. because what the supreme court said in the federal case, they were talking not so much they mention states rights, but they were talking about the impact on the individuals in a relationship and the children of those relationship how it took away their rights. it made their relationships less equal, second class. those sorts of things.
decisions. no evidence of a quid pro quo. republicans need to be careful not to overstate the case. it reminds us that clintons are complicated. they tend to make mistakes. >> it will be interesting to see how much more of this happens before democrats go as public as they did when i was talking to them last night. when we come back on this wee my cut hurts. mine hurt more. mine stopped hurting faster! neosporin plus pain relief starts relieving pain faster and kills more types of infectious bacteria. neosporin plus pain relief kills the germs. fights the pain. that's it. good job. nice coating. and get this one next. whoa! what are you guys doing? making sure nothing sticks. otherwise, we gotta scrub all this stuff off. huh, what? nobody thought of this before? what's wrong with people? dish issues? not with improved cascade platinum. it powers through... your toughest, starchy messes... better than finish's best... the first time.
have to deal with this. reduction, reduced drone strikes by the end of 2014. this was done in 2015. obviously, i think the goal was when the afghanistan war was done and the withdrawal complete the drone program would maybe completely end or nearly enfrom move from the cia and pentagon. obviously we didn't withdraw from afghanistan. why didn't we move to the pentagon? >> we have oversight of those operations. >> there is? >> that is correct. >> a lot of people don't belief that. >> there is oversight over these programs. number two the framework is in place. and if indeed the standard by which the government makes a decision whether or not to take a strike is near certainty, near certainty whether or not there will be injuries to a civilian in this case that protocol was followed and it turn out to be inaccurate. the president asked for a review in this circumstance as to why that turned out to be inaccurate. but there is no doubt about the effectiveness of these programs
or the necessity of these operations. >> you don't think these drones of killing terrorists with drones, unmanned isn't making more terrorists? >> that has been a concern for some time. >> i don't think that is the case. this is what i think is the case. comprehensive evident by the united states against al qaeda and its leadership has resulted in a safer america. that in fact we have been able to decimate al qaeda's leadership, that we've been able to reduce the threat to our forces in afghanistan and our interests around the world and in the united states. my own judgment is that ab isn't these operations like the president described object thursday absent these kinds of operations, a comprehensive effort against al qaeda there would have been further action against u.s. interests perhaps at the homeland. i don't have any doubt about that. >> let's talk about the constitutional rights of the two americans turned al qaeda operatives. the legal situation here is murky. according to the president they didn't know they were targeting, that these two individuals would be there.
stated the framework under custom we make the determination about collateral damage or the killing of innocents. in in case that turned out to be wrong. the standard that the president put in place is very high near certainty that there won't be death to civilians. >> this didn't meet those standards. >> the protocols were followed the standard whether or not this was a military facility where al qaeda operated out of and was a threat to our forces was accurate. but hostages were held against one of the facilities we took into action. what the president said here is we should take another look because it was a tragic accident. >> you say that the protocols -- he announced all of these in may 2013 almost two years. but it doesn't seem like many of the new protocols have been implemented. he wanted to refine and repeal
in our briefs, there's five votes including justice kennedy justice ginsberg and justice justice once the case was finally decided because of the inherent rights of individuals, we can count the justices that already decided the defensive marriage case and their explanation why they decided that. >> does it matter if it's 5-4 or 6-3? does it have a different impact? >> i think civil rights cases ought to be decided 9-0, 8-1 the way the civil rights decisions were largely made. it sends a message this country doesn't tolerate discrimination. i think the more justices that sign on, the better. i think if you just look at, you are reading tea leaves, look at
casual tees. in that case here it turns out not to be correct. and that's why the president asked for a review. a. >> but is it a failure in intelligence. >> i said the protocols were followed and it was accurate with respect to whether or not this was an al qaeda facility. but in fact there were hostages being held there. now, it is difficult to know that obviously. i spent a lot of time for example, working on the hundred for bin laden. it took us years over the course of two administrations to find him. he is a very tough business. and if you are looking for again, as tragic as this was, two things this is very important to protecting the united states and secondly and if you are looking for accuracy you are not going to find it in the war setting. i'm now joined by mike azello an expert on drone warfare. mr. zenko, welcome to "meet the press." let me ask you this. the drone program as it stands now, is it as necessary and successful as you heard it
windsor. i think it's very hard to see how any one of the five majority justices would decide this case differently. on the other hand, i think it's hard to figure out for sure that you can get any one of the four. >> always a pleasure. we bring in the panel now. we've got the republican governor of arkansas asa hutchinson. i went through the states' rights argument on this front. do you believe -- you're an attorney i believe. do you believe there is a line you can draw between saying the federal question is states have to recognize versus the question of whether states have to authorize? >> i thought your arguments were persuasive in the previous discussion. i think there is a way the court can do that. if you look at the windsor case that was spoken of, it was not just how gays were treated that was part of the decision, but
they were in the military facility. if the united states decides to take action against a american there are processes in place that allows that. >> had we known there were americans there the drone strike would have been at least delayed until they got the proper protocol. >> there would have been a review -- an additional review by the attorney judge and justice department with respect to ensuring that the constitutional and statutory rights of those individuals were protected. >> final question do you believe this was an intelligence fail oou? >> this is not a raid against a military facility. it was based on hundreds of hours of intelligence. and the assessment that it was an al qaeda compound in the military war zone was correct. secondly with respect to the near certainty standard with respect to not having civilian casual tees. in that case here it turns out