look, like christopher, i m not up on all look, like christopher, i m not up on all of look, like christopher, i m not up on all of the look, like christopher, i m not up on all of the details look, like christopher, i m not up on all of the details of look, like christopher, i m not up on all of the details of this - on all of the details of this particular on all of the details of this particular case. on all of the details of this particular case. i- on all of the details of this particular case. i do - on all of the details of this particular case. i do thinkl on all of the details of this - particular case. i do think every nation particular case. i do think every nation has particular case. i do think every nation has the particular case. i do think every nation has the right particular case. i do think every nation has the right to - particular case. i do think every. nation has the right to determine its rules nation has the right to determine its rules on
going to do. here s a picture of your house. can you draw the connection. connect the dots. it absolutely worked. the taliban calls him your excellency throughout. i think what we see there on the ability on the world stage of others to respect the projection of strength and to sit back on their heals and worry of the unpredictability of president trump. ainsley: all right, how about you, pete? pete: i second my compatriot, exactly right. unpredictability is a huge asset. this is psychological warfare. this is what works on the battlefield. demoralizing enemy. keeping him off balance. one of the most successful programs we had in iraq was something called status base rules of engagement. where snipers, if they knew someone was a known terrorist organization and they could identify them, they could shoot them on sight whether they are pumping gas or not. they are enemy combatant. only like three people on the list in is a mara. every insurgent thought they were psychologically i m n
Though it reached the right result, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Padilla sets a dangerous precedent that may hinder future responses to attempted acts of terrorism.
a civilian trial? or you re saying they have to be tried within ukraine as well? no, no. what i m saying is that they would in other words, what what the law says is that if they try that is, ukraine could try their own soldier who committed in the course of armed conflict a war crime or charged with a war crime. if their local courts, their civilian courts under the law as it existed and so forth at the time, they could try their own soldiers for that offense. then they could try a prisoner of war. that is an enemy combatant who is now a prisoner of war in a civilian court. that is a very narrow exception. robert, when you think about where and this is because excuse me.