it s dark in a movie theater. i don t know if you re going to attack with something else. as a result of that, did he need to react with such force? the defense is going to play the guard as you suggested. the media plays popcorn against a gun. i guarantee the lawyer will say something far more serious. he better. the facts do not look good in this case. there will be serious problems. you can t fire on somebody in a movie theater. this witness whether sympathetic or too partial, there were other witnesses and plenty of room fcorobe ration. it s not only her but the collective weight of the other evidence. paul and joey, you are are great. always great legal minds on these stories. extortion, dirty good dealings, all sounds like a plot from dirty cards about to drop.
are available and in working order. and i spoke to the owner of the house. he was there with his children. he doesn t think it s a good idea that there are too many unknown consequences and that even if israel or iran were to get a new clear weapon, what is it going to do with it? would it fire on to israel? israel would cease to exist a short while later. there s also a debate within the israeli intelligence community about whether the this threat is really as high as people think it is. with the top political leaders focused on iran, but the cadre in the israeli intelligence service, the rank and file saying the real threat comes from the neighbors. specifically egypt and potential future problems in jordan. let s talk u.s. policy. we re talking israeli policy. what s in the u.s. interest? i think in the u.s. interest it is absolutely imperative that israel be secure but in a middle east which is not at war. we can accomplish that. we can issue a public statement
engagement. what are they now, and how might they change under general petraeus? reporter: to put it simply, rules of engagement are how u.s. military personnel when on patrol can engage the ebme when fired upon and because there was such a high priority placed by former general stanley mcchrystal on avoiding afghan civilian casualties for all sorts of understandable necessary reasons because when u.s. forces harm or kill civilians in afghanistan that creates a secondary problem of morale and buy-in from the afghans to avoid the civilian casualties. it s very restrictive for u.s. forces. they can t necessarily call in air power, they can t fire on taliban attackers, even when they re being ambushed or being sniped at, unless they know for sure there are no civilians there. i talked to joe lieber many own fox news sunday because he was in kabul and met with general petraeus and he said are the rules of engagement going to be looked at and he said they were and added this: general pe