talking about. here s the response, erin. that editorial goes on to say that they can t target americans, unless we designate them as enemy combatants, which begs the question, who gets to make the judgment who s an enemy combatant and who s not? who gets to make the judgment, oh, he s associated with terrorists. if you write an e-mail to your cousin in lebanon and they might be a terrorist or they might have friends who are terrorists, somehow, you are without getting a trial by jury. these are the same two senators that argued in favor of indefinite detention, which means, and i asked senator mccain this directly, i said, does this mean you could take an american citizen, without a trial, and send them to guantanamo bay for the rest of their life, without ever charging them, and he said, yes, if they re a safety risk. who gets to decide? senator mccain? does he get to decide if you re an enemy combatant? i m alarmed by anybody, any adult, or any senator who would say that they get
adult, or any senator who would say that they get to judge your guilt and without a charge send you to indefinite detention. these are the same people who are also arguing that the laws of war apply to america, because america is the battlefield. in the law of war, the conclusion to that is that you don t get due process. so what they re arguing for is alarming. every american should be alarmeded and worried about the philosophy behind their arguments. and i understand what you re saying. i get the logic of that. but, you know, you ve said in the past that you would have convicted al awlaki of treason, and you wouldn t have been against a drone strike against him. how can you be all right with al awlaki killed in yemen by a drone, and not be okay with him being killed by a drone here if he s an enemy combatant plotting against america in america. i think, in america, we have a doctrine of lethal force if
so there s a gray area in your mind? no, on awlaki, my opinion is that it would have been better to try him for treason, and he could have been executed, because you can have a death penalty for a treason case. for people who are engaged in a battlefield overseas, that are holding grenade launchers or firing weapons, there is no due process. my point is is that senators mccain and graham say that they want the laws of war to come home to america, that america is a battlefield, and that the laws of war come home. but the laws of war don t involve due process, and can t. and i don t think they should. so, i don t want the law of war to be the law of america, because that would mean that we would be giving up on the bill of rights. on a slightly lighter note, you did get some support and you got some support from the democratic side. democratic senator ron wyden spoke up and defended you. senator paul, even majority leader harry reid had some
often killing people that are not actively involved in any kind of battlefield. so if we transmit that standard to america, you would have people sitting in cafes, in their home at night. we don t do that in america. in america, you re accused of a crime, you would be arrested, and you would get a trial by a jury of your peers. i still don t understand, in the al awlaki case, because they said they had proof he had plotted against the case, but at that moment, he wasn t holding a grenade launcher, pointing it at an american citizen, when they did it. so there s a gray area in your mind? no, on awlaki, my opinion is that it would have been better to try him for treason, and he could have been executed, because you can have a death penalty for a treason case. for people who are engaged in a battlefield overseas, that are holding grenade launchers or firing weapons, there is no due process. my point is is that senators mccain and graham say that they want the laws of war to come
have friends who are terrorists, somehow, you are without getting a trial by jury. these are the same two senators that argued in favor of indefinite detention, which means, and i asked senator mccain this directly, i said, does this mean you could take an american citizen, without a trial, and send them to guantanamo bay for the rest of their life, without ever charging them, and he said, yes, if they re a safety risk. who gets to decide? senator mccain? does he get to decide if you re an enemy combatant? i m alarmed by anybody, any adult, or any senator who would say that they get to judge your guilt and without a charge send you to indefinite detention. these are the same people who are also arguing that the laws of war apply to america, because america is the battlefield. in the law of war, the conclusion to that is that you don t get due process. so what they re arguing for is alarming. every american should be