i would have detained and prosecuted awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot, but we couldn t. as president, i would have been derelict in my duty had i m not authorized the strike that took him out. of course the targeting of any american raises constitutional issues that are not present in other strikes which is why my administration submitted information to the department of justice months before awlaki was killed and briefed the congress before this strike, as well. but the high threshold that we ve set for taking lethal action applies to all potential terrorist targets, regardless of whether or not they are americn citizens. this threshold respects the inherent dignity of every human
freedoms. so now you know this as well as i do, jake, the minute that you say there is an inquiry and a study under way, now whenever we re going to ask the question in the press briefing room about this, they will say, you know there s a study under way so we ll answer that question once the results of that study are complete. so i bet that will kick those answers down the road and we won t get those answers any more. so i think dlr a lthere are a l questions that this still leaves unaddressed and some of his critics on the left will still be unsatisfied. but at least he s on the record trying to address his policy and define it before the books on this administration are closed, jake. we have to wrap up but i want to go to congressman thornberry for one last thought. i found it interesting, congressman, you re on the intelligence committee on the house of representatives so i m sure you were aware of some of these details already. but there s been no little that has been publicly s
detain, interrogate, and prosecute. america cannot take strikes wherever we choose. our actions are bound by consultations with partners and respect to state sovereignty. america does not take strikes to punish individuals. we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and eminent threat to the american people. and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. and before any strike is taken, there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured. the highest standard we can set. now, this last point is critical because much of the criticism about drone strikes, both here at home and abroad, understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties.
stat states. the very precision of drone strikes and the necessary secrecy often involve in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. it can also lead a president and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism. for this reason, i ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. after i took office, my administration began briefing all strikes outside of iraq and afghanistan to the appropriate committees of congress. let me repeat that. not only did congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that america takes. every strike. that includes the one instance
american citizen anwar awlaki. that was first, to make that public news. he also said, i am open to reconsidering the authorization for the use of force, which is what gives him the power to do these drone strikes to go after al qaeda but, you know, he didn t define how he defines al qaeda, jake. so i think there are a lot of unanswered questions that this speech leaves open. what is an associate ed force o al qaeda? how does he decide who fits his definition for a strike? some other things he raised, he said he s open to more oversight in his drone strikes either from the judicial branch or inside the government, his own executive branch. but then he immediately knocked down both as problematic, both of his options are problematic. he said his attorney general is going to look into these leaks investigations and what should be the right balance with press