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:
I don't see what's all the flap is about. If you turn your back on this country and start collaberating with our enemies, then you are no longer an American citizen.Why can't they be killed by drones like other enemies. They are enemies not American. Kill them by any means necessary.
John that also applies to you.Be careful for what you wish for.One day a drone will take you out or a loved one, because you disagree with your government.
The ridiculous argument has popped up.I as an American am disagreeing with the Obama adminstration because of my skin color.My eyes are starting to glaze over.I do not care a fig about Obama's half white and half black racial makeup.Race does not make the policy to kill Americans with drones.
They are enemies just like any other enemy of the U.S. once they turn their back on this country, terminate them. All of you are concerned because only white folks will turn their back on this country.
This Brennan guy seems to be a pantie waste. Apologize? Screw that, send in more drones!
Don't worry Jonathan one day the drones will come for you.
I like that Brennan likes that Obama has a kill with drone policy. I like that Obama has it too. Surprised the liberals re quiet on it though...
So, I'm more befuddled over the obvious hypocrisy of the normal liberal who criticized Bush very loudly I might add for his war on terror policies and Obama has not only kept everyone of of them, but has made a few better like this kill first with drone ask question later...
I say kill them all, but it's weird hearing liberals agree with killing at will...
Like I have said previously.You better be careful for what you wish for.What goes around comes around.
Yeah, I know what you mean. That drone pointed at me right this second, like they have on all of us, might accidentally on purpose go off...
Hey, I know were you can get a new tin foil hat if yours is broke...
Throw this fuxking jerk out. "The American people would be very please..." BS. I'm not. Some of those targeted killings, where a handful of people and King Obama choose to whack Americans - with no due process, no court oversight, is beyond the pale. This SOB doesn't deserve the job at the CIA, or any job in the federal government. Why are they giving him 10 minutes worth of a hearing? Throw him out.
I wish.I would like for the entire criminal government and that includes both parties to be thrown out.
King Obama
To Drone or not to Drone that is the question
I thought that we were having a good discussion and then our skin color had to be brought up.I don't give a hoot that Obama is half black and half white.Skin color is used when an American's brain cannot function in a discussion.
This was a joke. They were avoiding drones at all cost. Talked more on security leak and water boarding. This just tells you how are politicians really love drones and don't care about the consequences.
A drone cannot be charged with murder when Obama, Eric Holder and an anonymous bureaucrat say that an American should be killed with a drone.
I don't care what the powers-that-be reasons are.
They got caught sneaking around with an illegal, secret plan that clearly violates not only our constitution, but everything fair that this country and its government are supposed to stand for.
And now we have to hear a sales job from a nominee?
Like maybe we want to buy a bridge?
Brennan is going to be history for trying that.
What a surprise, the criminal nominee of Obama is for killing Americans. And look at Feinstein, she thinks she is ruling queen of the United States, her long career in government is near end.
Check out what government contracts Diane Feinstein's spouse received over the years.
I wish.I figure he will be confirmed.They confirmed the bizarre John Kerry.
The main question is, who decides who is guilty and who is innocent? The government? How's their track record? An apology, really you or you loved one is still dead. This is going way too far.
Thank you Larry for thinking.You are correct.Who makes the decisions?Obama,Holder,Feinstein,Kerry,Brennan and on and on?
I can not understand the problem with drones being used to selective neutralize targets. It has been done by the CIA for years just not with automated drones. We have used snipers, seal teams, you name it. So why is it now this fear of the slippery slope with drones. It is just the fear of the government usurping their powers? No. It is simply new technology. Your rights have been usurped already. Now they are just fine tuning it a little.
The fact that you are not concerned tells me that you are already too far gone to have a reasonable conversation with.Welcome Obama drone to the conversation.
We have used snipers, seal teams, you name it
It has never been left up to a couple of people with loose definitions of what it would take. We have checks & balances that need to be adhered to. We are giving way to much power to a small group. Not good.
Really deerhunter? Do we put it up for congressional approval or a judge before we order the SEAL teams or snipers to attack ?
I must have missed those hearings and trials.
Deerhunter
We sent a mission in to kill Bin Laden. That was done by a decision of our president. When we are at war...yeah things get done that way. To say that we are gonna have drones take out political adversaries like Israel has for years. No.
And anti whatever...I see this flame coming up more and more recently...telling me I am too far gone when in reality you haven't even given me a chance. I get this feeling that a bunch of neo-con flamers realized that all the comments they were making got the response you just gave me...so as most neo-cons...unable to come up with a better response...just chose the ones they were getting....thinking of themselves as being clever. Not.
neo-cons in Congress on the far right are trying to grab hold of this just linke Libya and just like everything else. They refuse to pass any legislation. During the 6 months before the elections the Republican lead House only met for 12 days. And they are grasping at straws trying to make anything they can into controversy. Get over it. If I am not mistaken it was Vice President Biden's idea to focus on using drone attacks. It was a good idea and it helped turn the tide in Afganistan. The difference is technology. In war the President is Commander and Chief.
I see all these idiots that think it's alright for the terrorist obama to just say, with no proof, that any American citizen, anywhere, is a terrorist and he can have them murdered just on a wave of his hand. Yes, right now it's in another country, but nothing in there says he can't do it here too. And it WILL happen unless he is stopped. obama is not a man, he is a monster as much as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
You sheeple just quietly get in the boxcars for a ride to the FEMA camps where you will not lose anything except your freedom.
Yes the Jews of Europe filed quietly into the gas chambers.They calmly reported to the Nazi authorities and were murdered.
wes...that's why they call him President. And by the way slow down a little....where do you get off in comparing him to Hitler. Hitler killed 6 million people...or Stalin who killed millions more. Take a chill pill. The ONLY thing President Obama did to set you off was get elected and you are over reacting. He is President cause thats how our country works. And he IS Commander and Chief and that gives him permission to order the military into striking known enemies of our country in War. I mean really he got Bin Laden who had been "hiding" in plain site since Bush let him slip away over the border. You obviously like a lot of others hate our president...and you have absolutely no reason to or the right to slander him or the Democrats that elected him. Your hatred is unfounded. He reformed Wall Street with Dodd insuring that Middle Class America never again has to bail out Wall Street Millionaires. Are you a Millionaire? Then why are you helping them rape our country. There is 35% that make up the neo-con core of the Republican Party. There is 1% of our public who are millionaires and the rest of you...the 34% are cry baby wanna bes. He killed Bin Laden. He safely ended the war in Iraq. He is ending the war in Pakistan thanks to the drones. He is providing Universal Health Care Which has nothing to do with Socialism or any of your other crap. It is simply insuring that ALL Americans are covered...and that is all....not socialism...not an ounce. You are the one listening to the pied piper Murdock luring you into...stupidity. And you turn that just like every good neo-con into Double Speak and claim it is us who are blind. History will prove us right but why wait...we have the auto industry...who paid back with a profit...we have the banks who paid back with a profit...and the economy IS improving despite a republican led house who wanted to pass a bill for acknowledging...in one nation under God...but they can't pass ANY legislation that would be good for Presidnet Obama...so they met for only 12 days in 6 months. And I would think God just might get a little pissed off being so chummy with Him while you all ignore the 17 million starving kids in this country.
But in your eyes you will never acknowledge anything I have posted and you fill any response with neo-con talking points...because your eyes sir are filled with hatred.
How unfortunate that this CIA white paper on targeted killings should surface to weaken the Obama administration's hand just when they need to keep the pressure on congress with gun control coming up for a vote on Capitol Hill! It would be a real tragedy - one that would reverberate for decades to come - if we fail to rein in the CIA on targeted killings AND we fail to pass sensible laws to bring gun violence under control.
We have gun control already.Enforce the current regulations and laws.Leave our guns and us alone.
You can forget about that bub.
Regardless of what the second amendment says - right?
The American people can stop the government from the illegal gun grabs by just saying no and not doing what the criminals want.
The Founding fathers were not so bright guys. Do you think the right to vote should exist only in the hands of land owners. Was that a good idea? Or how about the slavery part....or maybe that women had no right to vote. Pick one. And then grow up. The second Amendment was created in a time when we had muskets...and militias. Guns were needed for hunting and defense in the back woods. And we had just waged a war gaining freedom from a country that taxed without representation. And BTW the founding fathers probably benefited more than most by breaking from England..And if you say that you need your guns to protect yourself from our government. Then I say you are the ones we need to get the guns away from first. We have political and legal ways to remedy our differences and if you can convince yourself that our country has done anything so aggrevious to condone raising your gun in action against our country than I would remind you that one man's just cause is an others treason.
You lost me and all credibility with "The Founding fathers were not so bright guys"
Survey say's------Your not so bright!
Maybe 'cause I wasn't talking to you. You are apparently by your own comment unwilling to read or consider anything which contradicts what you have been told growing up. The facts are there. We had slavery despite the Constitution and women were not allowed to vote. And at first your founding fathers considered restricting the right to vote to land owners only. That is why we have amendments to the constitution. And if you want think in certainties and black and white...then I am at no lose cause you would not have listened anyway..you just resort to name calling. The Second Amendment just cause it is in our Constitution does not mean it is undebateable..axcept for those like you.
Is English your second language?
CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden said interrogating al Qaida operatives is a vital source of insight into the terrorists’ plans. But he warned, “We have made it so legally difficult and so politically dangerous to capture that it seems, from the outside looking in, that the default option is to take the terrorists off the battlefield in another sort of way” – in other words, by killing them.
so let me get this straight, the Obama dems , fought long and hard against interrogation and wanted the foreign born terrorists tried in a us court so they could have due process. But now they complain that its to "politically hard to interrogate" so that's the justification for killing them instead?
Their reasoning powers are just a bit strange.It is the same story.Democrats can violate our rights and our laws one after the other and nothing is done.Senator Menendez is a prime example.
Talk about strange reasoning powers, You object to killing terrorists without due process but have convicted Menendez for violating our rights and laws with no evidence nor trial.
Dano what you are doing is a perfect example so I will use you to demonstrate: you use a quote from a General inferring that he is still a general. He is not he is retired. You use his quote to presume that even Obama's generals disagree with the president. While in reality Michael Hayden is retired because he is the former NSA head and former head of the CIA under George Bush Jr.
I assume you were taking for granted that if this general made this comment than he was right. He has said many things about Water Boarding and such that make me question his judgement. Let alone his postion as a former Bush appointee.
So what if this guy thinks we have tied our hands by following the Geneva convention. So what. Who is he other than retired general from an administration that openly tortured prisoners of war.
I do not want to go back to the days of Abu Nebar.
And that in all has nothing to do with Drone strikes. We have been able to force the Taliban to the table cause we have had so many successful hits. We have crippled Al Queda.
We have ended one war. We are ending another. We killed Bin Laden. And we have killed numerous high level members with drones.
And yet you want to side with the guys that f'ed it all up when they were in charge.
alot of assumptions there einstein, I quoted directly from the article I commented on period, all the rest of your assumptions are BS
you make me laugh and prove my point, you are against abu graib which was in place to get information against our supposed enimies yet your ok to use drones to kill them instead to make them bend to our wishes. AND the drone strikes have no oversight other than Obama
Oh yes, by all means, give Obama the right to order the murder of American citizens without permission or proof from anyone. All this does is give him permission to have anyone assinated he wants to, say they were a threat to our countries security and have them killed and if anyone asks questions about it then all he does is say sorry, can't answer for what I did, it's a matter of national security. I don't agree with anyone having the right to assinate anyone without checks and balances and they must have proof they did something in order to carry it out, not just a tip or one persons word either.Our current president is asking for more and more power to just do what he wants and if he doesn't get it then he does it by executive order as if he is king, not president. We have too much government control now as it is. I am not at all for this load of crap.
Waterboarding,,, we don't need no stinking waterboarding... we'll use the drones and kill children too
I dont like Obama. That being said, I have no problem with targeting terrorists. None at all. Any civilians killed would be considered collateral damage. Sorry but that is reality.
Anthony you will be one of them one day.One day you will be dead and Obama will say he was an enemy of the United States.
"Committee
chairman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. 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."
Can she not read? Just how smart is this Lady?
From
the notes of a Travel Agency:
Senator
Dianne Feinstein called and said, ''I need to fly to
Pepsi-Cola,
Florida. Do I have to get on one of those little computer
planes?''
I
asked if she meant fly to Pensacola and fly on a commuter plane.
She
said, ''Yeah, whatever, smarty!''
Not sure why so many are surprised that the current administration does not take the constitution seriously.
I am not surprised.I want the American people to say no to this dictator.
Fly the friendly skies! coming to your town sooner than you know, drones that will be watching you too, and bon't be surprised when you become a selected target too. The real problem with you morons claiming this is legitimate 'self defense' is that, well, you're morons. You couldn't connect the dots in a child's drawing book. Shame on our country and our tyrant 'president' for this shameful, ham-fisted policy. Little wonder so many other nations hate us, we've become despicable. And I'm and ex Marine who served my country with pride.
Well said Paul L.
The memo said it was lawful for the president to order targeted killings of people who are leaders of Al Qaida or "an associated force" – even if they happen to be American citizens -- when such people pose an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States and when it isn't feasible to capture them.
well, if the memo said it's okay it must be right? I need a memo to speed, one to raise my credit card limit after I max it out, one to forgive my mortgage payment...
So much for the Bill of Rights. Then again, one could argue that assassinating suspects without trial or charge doesn't involve habeas corpus. Better take extra care what you read and write online, because it's a short trip from a watch list to a hit list.
I am going to be watching the skies now.I am seriously afraid of this government.
Deeper bunker.
i predict that democrat senator wyden will soon be ostracised by his party for asking some hard questions during the confirmation hearing. he is not just going to rubber-stamp barry's choice.
Wyden will probably be targeted by a drone tonight.