Skygall

  • Aired:  02/06/13
  •  | Views: 124,956

A leaked government document details the legal argument supporting the president's use of drones to kill eventual Al Qaeda suspects. (3:56)

PLAYING]

[CHEERS AND APPLAUSE]

>> Jon: WELCOME TO "THE DAILY SHOW".

MY NAME IS JON STEWART.

GOOD SHOW TONIGHT.

TONIGHT'S GUEST ED WHITACRE HE'S ON AS FORMER CHAIRMAN AND C.E.O.

OF GM AND FORMER CHAIRMAN OF BOARD AND EXECUTIVE OFFICER AT AT&T.

I'M GOING TO SPEND THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY I CAN'T GET CELL SERVICE ON

THE WEST SIDE HIGHWAY.

YOU KNOW EVERY NOW AND THEN A REPORT COMES OUT THAT WE KILLED AL QAEDA'S NUMBER THREE GUY FROM

THE FIFTH TIME FROM ABOVE A MISSILED ROBOT PLANE OR WE MISSED HIM AND MISTAKENLY HIT A

FACTORY THAT MAKES CIVILIANS?

[LAUGHTER]

WELL, YOU MIGHT WONDER: IS THAT OKAY?

>> NBC NEWS HAS OBTAINED A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT THAT LAYS OUT THE LEGAL ARGUEMENT TO

JUSTIFY THE PRESIDENT'S USE OF DRONES TO KILL AL QAEDA SUSPECTS INCLUDING, IN SOME CASES, U.S.

CITIZENS.

>> Jon: U.S. WHAT NOW?

U.S. WHO?

I NEVER THOUGHT SOME OF THE TERRORISTS COULD BE PEOPLE ON AMERICA'S GOT TALENT.

YOU HAVE TO BE AMERICAN TO BE ON AMERICA'S GOT TALENT, DON'T YOU? OTHERWISE IT'S CUBA'S GOT TALENT.

I BET IT'S SPECIFIC ABOUT WHEN THEY CAN ORDER THE KILLING.

>> THE KILLING IS ALLOWED IF THEY ARE LEADERS OF AL QAEDA AND AN -- OR AN ASSOCIATED TERROR GROUP.

>> Jon: NO WORRIES THEY WON'T KILL YOU UNLESS YOU ARE PART OF THE AL QAEDA PARENT COMPANY.

AL QAEDA IN IRAQ, AL QAEDA IN LIBYA, EURO AL QAEDA, CHIPOTLE.

[ LAUGHTER ]

OH, REALLY THEY ARE NOT PART OF -- I THOUGHT AL QAEDA BOUGHT THAT FROM McDONALDS?

EITHER WAY IT'S DELICIOUS.

[ LAUGHTER ]

LEST YOU WORRY THAT WE'RE BEING TOO GENERAL ABOUT WHO WE CAN TARGET AND IT'S TOO LATE TO

CANCEL YOUR INCREDIBLY ILL-ADVISED SPRING BREAK TRIP TO THE YEMEN SANDALS.

[LAUGHTER]

THE LEAKED DOCUMENT LAYS OUT CLEAR LIMITATIONS OF WHEN TERRORISTS CAN BE TARGETED.

WE ONLY TAKE THESE KINDS OF ACTIONS WHEN THERE'S AN IMMINENT THREAT.

>> Jon: IMMINENT THREAT.

BY DEFINITION THAT REQUIRES CLEAR EVIDENCE TO A SPECIFIC ATTACK ON U.S. PERSONS AND

INTERESTS WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

>> AN IMMINENT THREAT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT A

SPECIFIC ATTACK ON U.S. PERSONS AND INTERESTS WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE.

[ LAUGHTER ]

>> Jon: REALLY BECAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE IF YOU DID THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CREATE A DIFFERENT

DEFINITION FOR THE WORD IMMINENT, A BROADER CONCEPT, IF YOU WILL.

>> THEY USE THE PHRASE BROADER CONCEPT OF IMMINENT.

[ LAUGHTER ]

>> Jon: SO IMMINENT THREAT, IN OTHER WORDS IMMINENT OR NOT IMMINENT, BROADLY SPEAKING.

IMMINENT IN THE GEE LOGICAL SENSE.

[ LAUGHTER ]

WE CAN KILL AN AMERICAN WHO IS AL QAEDA OR AL QAEDA ADJACENT IF THEY POSE AN IMMINENT DANGER

MEANING EVENTUALLY, I IMAGINE THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHO WILL BE ACCEPTED

INTO OUR, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM SKY MILES PROGRAM, IS SOMEWHAT STRING GENT INCLUDING

DUE PROCESS AND OVERSIGHT.

>> WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, NO COURT, NO TRIALING AND RELATIVELY LITTLE OVERSIGHT.

>> Jon: IT'S AN OPEN

Loading...