Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
President Obama's getting major kudos from not taking out another top level terror Boston and more all -- But what if we captured.
High level terrorist instead what could we have learned could we have gotten some valuable.
Information out of him and what about the controversy that erupted over the fact that.
This the C mom was a US citizen -- deported to Mexico.
Joining me now former attorney general under George W.
Bush judgeship -- -- and judge this you -- a great piece for the wall street journal of past week and that's why wanted to have you on to explain this.
You take the position that this business about the fact that He was a US citizen is.
It doesn't apply.
More to the point not only do I take that position the Supreme Court takes that position and they've taken that position for decades.
There were a bunch of -- would be saboteurs who landed wolf Long Island and off Florida in 1942 German saboteurs one of whom claimed to be USS.
On the tried -- -- in front of military commission in Washington even though the courts were open.
And the Supreme Court said the fact that this fellow is an American citizen and actually nothing to do with.
How He would be -- -- once He threw his lot in with people who were fighting the United States that He would be treated like one of them.
But but date but that the argument from people who say all commonalities they're US citizens say they have to have a trial and see your honor they've they had a trial.
This guy did not get a trial so they so that was the wrong way to handle.
They did not have a trial that passed Muster by civilian trial standards they had a military commission with no right of appeal.
All sorts of evidence and produce that could not have introduced at a regular criminal trial.
They were given a trial because they were capture.
Had they not been captured that would have been shot.
So this is so because of that brings it right to the point -- that that the the real issue behind all of this.
Is a citizen says I'm throwing my lot with somebody that is an enemy of this country.
It doesn't change your citizenship but it changes your legal stand.
Correct it doesn't and it's not just that He says He throwing his lot He is acting He is acting as if -- were one of the soldiers.
He's training people He is fomenting doing exactly the kinds of things that.
The people who are active who are not citizens are doing He is putting himself among them once He does that he's just as much -- target as they are.
All right the you get into the whole question the question then about -- citizenship -- and gets very close to the whole issue about immigration.
Anchor babies all these sorts of questions about what is a citizen what when when they can you lose your citizenship can I lose my citizenship.
Somehow abide by my actions.
Not by not by our actions as far as I know the only way you can actually lose your citizenship is by formally announcing.
And you have to go to a US embassy abroad and actually fill out -- -- virtually aren't our announcer says so.
-- this guy didn't do that in town and then the other question is you get this guy before if He was a US citizen He died US's yeah sold sold.
Of the of the of some of the people out there that are Bob Ron Paul and others are talking about -- constitutional groups.
They're saying that they got a mix is up to group -- because the people on the right.
Very constitutional oriented everything else and and yet the same time you're saying that this is still OK I saw a report yesterday that said well this means that.
He'd asked his government could go after and target anybody out there that it seemed.
-- -- -- -- -- The kind of decision that is made by the president by people who are elected to do the jobs that they do.
And it at some point it becomes a political issue.
And they the people will pay people will pay politically if they make the wrong decision that's what inhibits.
One inhibits them to a certain degree but when you're talking about fighting a war.
We had an issue that and you're not going to shoot at us decision to be made by people in the military and the people who -- of the civilians who supervised the top by the president as the commander entry.
Horrible one of the other complications behind all of this is a lot of people go back to the fact that we haven't declare war.
In decades and that you really need that declaration it's very important.
Step to -- two to where you now have a declaration of war and now you can't go after these people.
And -- in a -- I beg to differ we did declare war.
There is something called the authorization for the use of military force the -- IMF.
On which the administration continues to rely that was passed a couple of days by congress right after 9/11 it's this is actually one of the few declared wars that we've had.
In is at the Atlanta declaration of war I mean people are looking for something -- says declaration of war.
It says authorization for the use of military force using military force is war.
It still we made it did.
Lands at the same fundamental -- semantics are correct and this is actually one of the few declared wars that we've been involved and we were at we were in cornea.
We were in Vietnam we were in.
All sorts of places.
You about it but right but judgment.
The hold debate that you -- rule with with gitmo.
And one of the problems there was a lot of the court said.
You brought these people to something that looks like America it's got American flag on it and and so you have to treat them like you brought them to America.
And and in besides affect this all would have changed if you would have possibly had a declaration of war.
Well I don't think that that part would change to get a declaration of war because with what that -- turned on was how much we control on time and on how much we don't.
I think that.
Frankly I think the case that decided that those people like ABS rights.
Was wrongly decided but it didn't decide that they have the same rights that they would have if they were brought to the mainland United States that's altogether different time.
It because now we're getting into and I heard a general interviewed the other day that was talking about the fact that what you now have is a situation.
If you can't bring them to Guantanamo.
And you don't wanna leave them in a prison I think you wrote about this if you don't wanna leave them in a -- another country which you don't know how they're gonna be treated and we get second hand intelligence information.
That basically comes down to the military will -- -- will just -- Well.
Think there that the administration is kind of painted himself itself into a corner because they made a decision to bring.
The 9/11 plotters over here congress got -- from from Guantanamo.
Congress said we don't want -- do that and we're gonna exercise the power of the purse to.
Basically bar the use of any money to bring any gitmo detainee and the administration's response was okay we're not taken anybody else to get now.
But doesn't that leave us without the ability I think it was your point in your in your piece in the journal.
It -- as without the intelligence that we could have gathered from a -- -- that we now we won't get even if we quarter rabid -- it that opportunity is gone.
I think what we need what we need to do is to re institute a classified interrogation program.
And a lawful interrogation program which is what the CIA had.
And we also need to face up to the fact that if we need Guantanamo we ought to use it I've been there it's a state of the art facility.
The prisoners get better treatment better medical treatment within the soldiers who have custody.
We've heard them.
Very interesting piece it was visits -- buried in and I agree with your with your.
The opinion about that's a shame because now we've got all these people we could be getting treasure trove of information from -- And they're and we can't we're -- our own hands it's nobody else -- would.
Judgment Casey thank you so much good to see you thank you very much you.
Filter by section