standard, it might end up meaning very little regulation at all, but we really don t know. you know, we talk about national security and security policy and the sort of gray language, or the language that provides gray area, because so much of the technology, whether it s drone war fare or targeted strikes is ahead of the actual policymaking. the internecessarily seems to almost be a parallel situation, right? commercially reasonable circumstancea 2014 may be a completely different thing in 2016 or 2020. it feels like part of the reason we have such a problem here is because the body tasked with actually responding to changes in society, which is congress, has totally punted on actually legislating around this issue in particular. you have written about that. tell us a bit more. yeah, exactly. the legislation that everybody is debating about and lit gatting over is the 1996 telecommunications act. justin bieber was a toddler when
saying? some were comparing verizon to nazi war criminals. the screaming and hand-wringing was unbelievable. i m not so sure, from what i m reading here, that this is even more indiscriminate than what the bush administration was caught doing in 2006. again, you can go to surveillance of reporters. you can go to drone war fare. they can wring their hands but it seems all fairly hollow and i suspect you re not going to see much change in policy, chuck. no. i don t think you will. because they will always do that whole, you know, use the umbrella of national security and it s an umbrella protection and it might be enough for some in the public. i don t know if it s enough for all. chuck, chau. see you coming up on the daily rundown. howard thank you for the definition of t.s. it was helpful. still ahead a new report
more aggressive in drone war fare than the previous administrations. that s caused a lot of problems with civil libertarians and especially when americans start being killed. rick stengel, time magazine looked into this a month or two ago and it was your cover story. what should we make of the president s announcement later on today he is going, i think, by pressure, because of pressure, be forced to change his drone policy? joe, one of the things we discovered and i think we have all seen that the drone policy in some ways is the face of the united states abroad in pakistan and afghanistan and many other areas. as far as the united states brand, i think it was not something they thought was something that was great in terms of representing the u.s. obviously, there are internal guidelines and regulations about it but i think from a pr perspective, i think, the idea of scaling back so this is not the face of the u.s. abroad is
will. i think she will. the country will be still a generous country. up close with 43. president george w. bush tonight at 9:00 p.m. shannon: antiwar protesters gathered in england yesterday to express opposition to drone flights in afghanistan. until last week, british drones were are controlled out of an air force base in nevada. the activists argued the drone war fare makes it to easy to activate in a distance. thdistance. syria is denying u.s. accusations that it has used chemical weapons in attacks on rebels. washington is still trying to pin down definitive proof but you there is a lack of agreement over whether to use america ms military to intervene. senator ben cardin joins us
redefine. again, defining imminent. dana milbank also wrote a very interesting article about this and said trust me is probably not enough. i m looking at the article right here. you picked up on it. trust me is not enough on drone war fare specifically is the title. is this the perfect defense policy for republicans? it s strong on terror but relatively low cost in this time of massive deficits? i think it s another tool in the tool box for our military. i think it s interesting what you talk about. president obama does sell this to the democrats is this allows us not to have boots on the ground. from a republican point of view, it s an issue we can use, be safe, keep up with what s going on, and not as expensive as other programs. the only thing that i m cautious about is i almost look at it as working a video game, and there s something redifferent in being able to remotely kill someone than have to actually put a person in front of you.