Obama's Legal Argument for Drone Strikes
TAPPER: Welcome back to THE LEAD. I'm Jake Tapper. In other world news, President Obama laid out his legal argument today for why drone strikes, ones that have killed four Americans, were not only legal and just but his presidential duty. He used the example of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen and al Qaeda propagandist, killed by a drone strike in Yemen almost two years ago.</s>BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would have detained and prosecuted Awlaki if we captured him before he carried out a plot. But we couldn't. And as president, I would have been derelict in my duty had I not authorized the strike that took him out.</s>TAPPER: The Obama administration identified Awlaki as an operations chief. I want to bring in someone who has been covering this topic expansively, Jeremy Scahill. He's the author of the book "Dirty Wars", on the U.S. covert wars. It's now a documentary that's premiering next month.</s>JEREMY SCAHILL, AUTHOR, "DIRTY WARS": Thanks for having me.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Air strikes, targeted killings,</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How had a covert unit taken over the largest war on the planet?</s>TAPPER: An exciting little scene from "The Dirty Wars" documentary. He is the national security correspondent for the progressive magazine, "The Nation". He joins me now. Jeremy, thanks so much for being here. I know you question the legal justification for these strikes. President Obama today gave a lot more information than we've heard about al-Awlaki in terms of the role he allegedly played with the failed Christmas day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. What did you make of the president's argument today?</s>SCAHILL: I thought it was interesting that the president said that he would have detained and prosecuted Anwar al-Awlaki. If that's the case, why did he never seek an indictment against Awlaki? I mean, al-Awlaki may have been guilty of all sorts of heinous activities but no public evidence was ever presented against him, just pronouncements usually in the form of leaks from the White House. So, if you're going to say that you intended to prosecute a person, you probably should seek an indictment against them. And, you know, my reaction to the president's speech is that it really is a sort of just a rebranding of the Bush era policies with some legalese that is very articulately delivered from our constitutional law professor, Nobel Peace Prize-winning president. But effectively, Obama has declared the world a battlefield and reserves the right to drone bomb countries in pursuit of people against whom we may not even have direct evidence or that we're not seeking any indictment against.</s>TAPPER: Well, I think our former guest, Mr. Rumsfeld, would disagree that this is a continuation of Bush policies. But just to move on. Do you think there's any legal justification for drone strikes on Americans?</s>SCAHILL: No, I don't. I mean, I -- look, the fact of the matter is that the Americans that have been killed in these drone strikes, with the exception of one man who was killed in Pakistan who the U.S. did actually have an indictment against, Jude Mohammad, one of the four Americans, none of the others had actually been charged with any crime. In fact in the case of one, Samir Khan, a Pakistani-American who was killed alongside Awlaki, my understanding is that the government sought an indictment against him and failed to get it and he was killed anyway. And, you know, the killing of Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, really to me is just shameful that this administration will not explain why they killed this 16-year-old kid. And to use this Orwellian phrase that he was not specifically targeted and what does that exactly mean? I mean, that he was not specifically targeted? Was he killed in one of these signature strikes? Are they implying he was collateral damage? I mean, that family and the American people have a right to know why this kid was killed.</s>TAPPER: Lastly, Jeremy, you have a documentary coming out, "Dirty Wars", which is based on your book. You traveled the world investigating what you called the covert operations of this administration. Tell us either generally or most specifically what was the most interesting thing you found?</s>SCAHILL: Well, the most interesting thing is that the Obama administration, while saying that they shut down the black sites, and they did, and saying that they don't torture anymore, are actually using in a country like Somalia, a network of war lords to do the killing for America and are actually utilizing a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia's national security service. So, that's sort of a work around to the torture and rendition program so Obama can say, well, we're not running the show, but instead they're outsourcing and directing foreign nationals to do it. And I think that is really a metaphor for how little things have changed on this particular front.</s>TAPPER: Jeremy Scahill, the book is "Dirty Wars." The documentary is coming out next month, the same name, we'll have you on again soon. Thank you so much.</s>SCAHILL: Thanks, Jake.</s>TAPPER: Coming up, our political panel. They're hanging out in the luxurious CNN green room. There's free coffee. Hillary Rosen, Carly Fiorina, Mark Leibovitch. Carly --</s>CARLY FIORINA, FORMER SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Yes?</s>TAPPER: In totally unnecessary news, we now know what President Obama wore to his prom in 1979. "TIME" magazine obtained these photos exclusively. Congratulations, "TIME". Big get. Let's hear your grade on the white jacket. Thoughts?</s>FIORINA: Well, I actually think he looks pretty adorable in this picture I must say. I profoundly disagree with him on many things, but this is a great picture of a very handsome young man.</s>TAPPER: All right. Somewhere, Ricardo Montalban wants his suit back. THE LEAD continues, next.