E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated at 6:26 p.m. ET: At his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Intelligence Committee John Brennan, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Central Intelligence Agency, defended Obama’s policy of targeted killings of terrorists, saying that some Americans had a misimpression that “we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such action as a last resort to save lives when there’s no other alternative” to avert a threat to the nation.
Despite the questions about Obama’s use of targeted strikes to kill people whom the administration calls “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or affiliated groups, it seemed by the end of the three-and-a-half hour hearing that Brennan was certain to be confirmed. Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called him “a fine and strong leader” and pledged her support for him.
Alluding to some raucous protesters who had interrupted and delayed the hearing, Brennan said, “They really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government, and the care that we take, and the agony that we go through” to ensure that innocent bystanders or civilians aren’t hit in targeted killings. “People are reacting to a lot of falsehoods that are out there.”
During his confirmation hearing to be director of the CIA, John Brennan reaffirmed his opposition to the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, and rejected suggestions that he'd rather kill a terrorist with a drone than detain him. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Related: GOP senators assail Gen. Dempsey and Obama for response to Benghazi attack
He said, “I think the American people would be quite pleased to know that we’ve been very disciplined and very judicious” and that the Obama administration only uses targeted killings “as a last resort.”
On American citizens who become involved in al-Qaida or allied group abroad, Brennan said, “any American who joins al-Qaida will know full well that they have joined an organization that is at war with the United States” and that the U.S. government “will do everything possible to destroy that enemy to save America lives.” When Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked if such a person could surrender before the U.S. government killed them, Brennan said “they have the ability to surrender anytime, anywhere.”
Brennan told Wyden if a person is killed by mistake in a targeted killing, the government should acknowledge it publicly.
In answering another question from Wyden about the public’s understanding of the standards Obama uses to determine if he has enough evidence to order the killing of an American who is involved in al-Qaida terrorist plans, Brennan said, “What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues and at the same optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. I don’t think it’s one or the other.” He said, “We need to explain to the American people what are the thresholds for action” and what procedures the CIA and the president use to ensure that the killing are legal.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein clears the chamber during Thursday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing do to protesters opposing the nomination of John Brennan as head of the CIA.
Thursday’s hearing was a chance for senators on the panel to ask Brennan whether Obama is using drone strikes as a less politically troublesome option than capturing detainees and putting them in Guantanamo.
“I never believe it is better to kill a terrorist than to detain him,” Brennan told Intelligence Committee ranking Republican member Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. “We want to detain as many terrorists as possible so we can elicit the intelligence from them in the appropriate manner so that we can disrupt follow-on terrorist attacks.”
But Brennan did not reveal how many high-value al-Qaida suspects had been arrested and interrogated since Obama became president, promising Chambliss only that he’d get that information for him.
In reply, Chambliss said during Obama’s presidency that only one high-value al-Qaida suspect has been arrested and interrogated.
On the targeted killings policy, Obama directed the Department of Justice Wednesday to give the congressional intelligence committees "access to classified Office of Legal Counsel advice” related to the policy. This move came after NBC News on Monday published a Justice Department white paper giving the legal basis for the targeted killings.
Win Mcnamee / Getty Images
John Brennan, nominated by U.S. President Barack Obama to be the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee February 7, 2013 in Washington, DC.
The memo said it was lawful for the president to order people who are leaders of al-Qaida or “an associated force” killed when such people pose an imminent threat of attack against the United States and when it isn’t feasible to capture them. This is true even if they happen to be American citizens.
Brennan and other Obama administration officials say that the congressional authorization to use military force enacted after the Sept 11. 2001 attacks provide all the legal authority Obama needs to order the killing of al Qaida terrorists or those plotting attacks on the United States.
Feinstein complained to Brennan that the Justice Department has still not turned over eight Office of Legal Counsel opinions giving legal rationale for the killings. And she complained that only senators on the panel and not their staff members are allowed to read them. “The Justice Department is not yet followed through on the president’s commitment,” added Wyden.
In the opening stage of the hearing senators wanted to ask Brennan, who worked at the CIA for 25 years, about his knowledge of the enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding that were used by CIA operatives prior to 2008 to get information from al Qaida detainees.
“I did not take steps to stop the CIA’s use of those techniques. I was not in chain of command of that program,” Brennan told Chambliss.
“I was aware of the program – I was CC’d on some of those documents -- but I had no oversight,” he added. He also said, “I had expressed my personal objections and views to some agency colleagues” about some of the EIT methods such as waterboarding.
Brennan told Chambliss that he had the impression in 2007 that "there was valuable information coming out" from Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, but that after having read parts of a 6,000-page internal CIA review of the EIT program, he now doesn’t know if those techniques did elicit valuable information.
Leave a Comment:
It makes me nervous when some government sneak tells me that Barry and the rest of his henchmen only become judge, jury and executioner "as a last resort." What is even more disconcerting is that the lickspittles in Congress seem to be oblivious to these tyrants' claims that we should trust them.
Has the Amerikan nation become so ignorant of history that it allows dictatorial power to it Executive?
Ask Bush, he was the one that started this @!$%#!!!
Tom...
Why didn't you piss and moan when Bush created this?
Tom, no I don't think we are ignorant of what you're saying, it's just that people are not up with times. They know about Drones and what they can do but are not aware of how tech has changed the prespective. It changes the rules on a lot of things to include personnell view points. The entire picture of forces and the battlefield have changed. Did we have Traitors during the Cold War or Vietnam? Yes. What people don't realize is what will get you on the hit list is "Active Involvement".
Do you realize that there is a white American man thaat has been living in North Korea for over 20 years. He is a NK citizen because he believes in their Government. He is not in their Military and lives and works there. I don't consider him to ba a traitor, but if he puts an a NK Uniform, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot him.
Murder killing policies is what they are doing.
wrf---
HOG-WASH
People can sure be idiots, talk about the uninformed spewing their hatred of something they only think they know something about! Bush started this Patriot Act bull@!$%#, so get over it already!!! You morons said nothing when Bush signed this order, so shut the @!$%# up, now!!!
Why must this make President Obama a tyrant, or terrorist? @!$%# like this needs to be done, over there, and not here! If any American citizen is OVER there, plotting the demise of America, kill his stupid ass OVER there!!! @!$%# the collateral damage!!! Full speed ahead!!!
Brennan will make a fine C.I.A. director! 25 years of experience behind him, sure, he'll be a great director!
You are so right.....Bush could walk on water, but Obama must sink.
Odd, Bush cannot FLY over water for fear of being arrested!
Bush signed The Military Commissions Act of 2006 and they didn't complain. Just look it up and read. You will astounded.
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue at a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
And all of what was said from 2001 to 2003 was based on the "intelligence" information relayed by Bush and Cheney...all lies. Colin Powell admitted he lied to the UN. Perhaps if the "Republican Intelligence"(a real oxymoron there) had given Bush facts instead of talking points, my 2 grandsons would NOT have died in Iraq!
Volunteers, right?
God Bless those heroes.
Yes, they were volunteers... they both believed Bush/Cheney lies. Thank you for the blessing. They are truly my heroes.
Colin Powell on an interview has said he was sent to the UN with 2 years and older intelligence to convince them that the Iraq invasion was justicfiable. Bush also said that the invasion of Iraq was to keep Al Qaeda from crossing the weastern borbers to escape into Iraq. Funny they would have had to cross the entire country of Iran to do it from Afghanistan. With a show of hands, how many of you thought that Afghanistan bordered Iraq?
Lol, listen to this tard Say What....the US position on Iraq having WMD's was true during the Clinton administration, but as soon as Bush started saying the same thing in 2001, it became a lie.
And, sorry moron, a lot of those Demo quotes say "we have known for a decade".
The Dumbs have a hard time keeping their Bush lied fiction alive when faced with ten million quotes from their own people saying the same thing.
The Truth of course: our intel agencies told us, uninterruptedly for 20 years that Saddam had WMD's, had nothing to do with Bush at all.
Alright lets target the Kardashians.
Those americans who support terrorism become fair gain to be targeted. They make their own destiny, but desire to make other americans their targets for death. They are responsible for their own children when they leave this country and chose to go to a foreign country to join the Al-Qaida. When they subject their kids to this type of life becoming traitors to our country, that has allowed them to have the opportunity to live in a peaceful society, they are looking for nothing but trouble.
Yep, and you still complain NONE about The Communist Koch Bros or Grover Norquist. Not all Terrorist carry Guns. They are terrorist non the same.
During the American Revolution, Captain Huddy was executed by the tories with no trial. 400 inhabitants
wrote a letter to George Washington on 14 April, 1782.
It said, "hanging any person, without any, even a pretended tryal, is in itself not only disallowed by all civilized people, but it is considered as barbarous in the extreme."
Yes, and they lynched Horse Theifs and Cattle Rustlers. So what's your point? I don't know about Huddle to much but does the name Beidict Arnold ring any bells?
i agree with shawn's first post if you are where the drone is off american soil you should not be there
well joe with all due respect we have done it many times since . vigalante justice and against many black people even up till the last century . i dont know what the answer is . we fight today like never before . i like the fact we can use drones to eliminate a specific target . i hate the fact that innocents get killed and i can see why some would hate us .i think we should use drones for surveilance then maybe use special forces for the operation . but we must allow are military to not wait to be fired on or attacked before retaliating it only helps the enemy to know they have that option on thier side .
The problem is we can't do to many exscursions into place where we are not allowed. If that's the case than we just may as well suck up the expense and our view in the worlds eyes and invade, inveade, and invade.
just because there wewre no wmd's in iraq dont mean they did not have they had 9 plus months to move them . and they did have because they used on the kurds in the north . wouldnt be urprised if they are in syria or the russians moved them out . i believe at some point in time they were there
wow nice post vic . this should be looked at by all democrats next time they want to blame someone .i guess all these quotes are taken out of context ....lolololololol
No one claims that they were taken out of context....my statement in 241.1 addresses that directly
They may have been there at one time, no one disputes that.....but, I had to bury 2 grandsons who died in Iraq....and they had believed the lies, too.
Colin Powell admitted they were lies, and it appears W wanted solely to finish was daddy did not do when we went in through Kuwait.
I don't think you even realize what Progressive Agenda encompasses, let alone what it is all about. One thing it does encompass is Capitalism. Do you know what Capitalism is? It is what we are living today. Karl Marx wrote on it some 160 years ago and he hit the nail on the head. We have been a Capitalist Nation for many, many years now. here is what Marx wrote, now see if it fits.
His argument is that as capitalism develops, the organic composition of capital will increase, which means that the mass of constant capital grows faster than the mass of variable capital. Fewer workers can produce all that is necessary for society's requirements. In addition, capital will become more concentrated and centralized in fewer hands.
This being the absolute historical tendency, part of the working population will tend to become surplus to the requirements of capital accumulation over time. Paradoxically, the larger the wealth of society, the larger the industrial reserve army will become. One could add that the larger the wealth of society, the more people it can support who do not work.
However, as Marx develops the argument further, it also becomes clear that, depending on the state of the economy, the reserve army of labour will either expand or contract, alternately being absorbed or expelled from the employed workforce. Thus,
Marx concludes that: "Relative surplus-population is therefore the pivot upon which the law of demand and supply of labour works." The availability of labour influences wage rates, and the larger the unemployed workforce grows, the more this forces down wage rates; conversely, if there are plenty jobs available and unemployment is low, this tends to raise the average level of wages - in that case workers are able to change jobs rapidly to get better pay.
Does this sound familiar? No, I'm not a Marxist but the man was ahead of his times in his observation skils. This was published 140 years ago but he wrote it 20 years before that. Near as I can tell, if history repeats itself we will become Socialist and than Communist only we will probably call it something else. So keep on drinking your Troll Aid and you might get off the addiction to it in time.
Brennan, Panetta, Clinton all lying out their teeth to protect Skeeter. Benghazi was a negligent, murderous, covered-up, and corrupt administration that did not want to reveal what they asked Chris Stevens to do. We now know everyone at the WH and the bureaus wanted to arm the Syrian Freedom Fighters, but only Obama chickened-@!$%# out of the weapons transfer. Chris went to Benghazi to meet with the Turk and buy them back. Typical Skeeter fiasco. Meanwhile, specially trained SEAL teams sat waiting for the go signal just an hour away. Incredible.
Urban...
Do you ever post anything factual or do you just make up your own facts?
Provide some links to prove your lies.
Ugly, inept, skinny little men, who lack confidence and competence - make the best dictators.
...
There sitting here talking taking out our own with a term and expression terrorist. The biggest terrorist organization I know of is the Federal dog pile they call government. Its time to rain these thugs in. First person that gets killed by one of these will open a new door. Its called target the federal pieces of dog crap. Yep I believe we have enough scum piles running this show that could be targeted as well. And to think both liars bush and obama were shown trying to be tough guys by shooting shot guns. Anytime either one of you pussys want to spend 5 minutes in a ring with me just let me know. I can teach you alot about truth and ethics in a very short time. Pieces of scum you are. Murdering sacks of crap. All of you feds need replaced. All of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Two words: Anger management.
Obama wants to use drones on America citizens.... Where are all you anti Patriot Act leftist Hypocrites...
BTW, the Patriot Act was a TEMPORARY measure for dealing with a direct threat on the very existence of our country. Obama not only supports it now, he expanded it .....HYPOCRITES...
I am a Democrat and an enlisted man in the USAF. Some of you need to start actually reading what is on the screen. Between this article and the previous one all I am reading is crap about an evil government that is out to kill americans with no evidence. I will make this short and simple for the morons not capable of understanding a news article. 1 - The people targeted (ex. Anwar Awlaki) are members of al-qaida or a joint force. 2 - These target like the ones before them are hiding away in other countries surrounded by fellow members ( Awlaki was in Yemen) which makes it extremely difficult to detain them...let alone arrest them and put them on trial which they would do if they were hiding here in the states. 3 - The previous article stated that they could be targeted without intel of an active plot. Actions that make them targets other than an active plot would be supplying, training, harboring, ect. al-qaida members. 4 - It makes no sense to target people in the US when the FBI/CIA could just raid the hideot and reduce the risk of collateral damage to ZERO. Try forming opinions after you know what the hell you are talking about
I actually applaud Obama for the use of drones against terrorists. But on American soil, against Americans, kind of violates even more laws than he has passed.
This is the problem with our "War On Terror". We know, as well as the host countries, where the terrorist camps are. Liberals will say, we aren't at war with "Egypt" or "Yemen" or "Libya", and it isn't right to kill people with drones. What they don't do is give any alternative solutions. We can demand than Egypt arrest, detain and hand over these terrorists, but they won't and we'll continue to supply them with guns, money, tanks, and jet fighters, because Obama is a moron.
Bush said that any country harboring a terrorist would be considered a terrorist... but even though Pakistan harbors entire Al-Qaeda camps, we do nothing.
Why not give the host country the intelligence with a deadline. Arrest, detain, hand over OR kill the terrorists you are harboring/hosting in your country, or we will go to war with you. I'm pretty sure citizens of that country will get pretty upset when their homes are destroyed because of a handful of terrorists. And that our strikes could have been avoided by simply cooperating and removing the terrorists themselves.
Eventually, terrorists will have no where to go and no where to hide. Not because of our drones, but because countries and their citizens would rather live in peace than force our strikes because they allow terrorists to hide and train in their country.
The Obamination of America continues....
You don't go along with Ignorance (Obama World) , you educate and Defeat it....
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012: Panetta said that Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, 'up to us.'
Some Commander in Chief... Huh???? But he takes credit for Bin Laden.....what a creep....
Attention Republicans, we believe that you are all members of a Terrorist organization that is a danger to the US.
Please report to the nearest military base for execution.
Thank you!
p.s. - please turn in you guns before reporting
I don't believe the policy of killing Americans suspected of being terrorists is constitutional.
The constitution apples to all Americans including those cavorting with terrorists.
Due process trumps all.
Don't get me wrong if we bomb a suspected terrorist post in Iraq and an american leader happens to be there along with the foreign ones I don't have a problem with there death.
I do though have a problem with targeting an American for death without due process.
If he is captured, convicted and executed I'm fine with that.
I think we re going down a slippery slope and it's wrong.
I would feel the same whether the president proposing it is a Democrat or Republican.
I hope the Supreme Court gets this before it is to late I don't see how they will uphold this policy but I'm not a lawyer.
Well as long as I am not bothered by this what do I care,,,and if I do get bothered,I'm out of this country,
I can and will move to an up and coming country,not a down and failing one like the USA of Mexico
Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one; it is man and not the materials that counts … Mao Tse-Tung
ALEX KRZYSTON
CIA nominee Brennan's logic is faulty.
So, with regards to drones, they, like obscured I.E.D.'s, are objectionable as that they expose no risk to the one operating/deploying as-much, and aren't even (as weapons go) necessarily 'carried-openly.' (They could be stealth as to their operation.)
(Rules-of-war would not require of irregular forces resisting invaders that they have command-and-control, but it is required that irregulars carry their arms openly, and part of that is that they are themselves exposed to harm -- that they are targets.)
While much that is called terrorism violates as-much, as do land-mines, especially if undetectable, drones are clearly problematic in that area, ESPECIALLY where the operator is at no risk of harm in controlling them.
Now then, where Brennan states that drones aren't used as a form of execution, but to prevent an imminent attack, by definition drones are far-removed from those they attack.
Towit, the person being hit by a drone strike isn't remotely near anything they might attack.
Imminent attack is thus structurally very far away whenever a drone attack is considered.
Let me make it concrete: drones are of a nature with being operated behind-enemy-lines.
Imminent-attacks don't occur behind-enemy-lines (not by an enemy.)
To use drones, as what happens behind-enemy-lines (when matters are FAR removed from frontline contact) is thus nowhere near where an imminent attack would happen.