and Exploring Technology, Effectiveness, Consequences of Drone Warfare & VIDEO: RISE OF THE DRONES 23JAN13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/exploring-technology-effectiveness.html
February 8, 2013 |
During John Brennan’s confirmation hearing for CIA director, the architect of Obama’s drone program unapologetically defended targeted assassinations—even of American citizens. Given his adamant defense of the program, there’s still a lot the America people deserve to know.
But the Senate Intelligence Committee failed us. Rather than asking the tough questions, senators battled Code Pink protestors, kissed a lot of ass, and even told a waterboarding joke.
Several journalists andbloggers listed important questions for Mr. Brennan prior to his hearing. Most went unasked and unanswered. Here are some questions for Brennan that we still don’t have answers to:
1. Will You Please Recite the Fifth Amendment?
Brennan and Sen. Diane Feinstein engaged in a lengthy exchange over Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who was killed by way of drone strike in 2011. The U.S. citizen, accused of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, did not get a chance to stand trial before the Obama administration pulled the trigger. Yet, Feinstein fed Brennan everything he needed to defend the administration’s complete disregard for due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. If al-Awkali was such a “bad guy,” as Feinstein repeated over and over, why couldn’t we indict him? Writer Jeremy Scahill put it best in a tweet: “The faux trial that Feinstein & Brennan gave Anwar Awlaki today (with no evidence) was the only trial they gave him--and it was posthumous.”
2. Why Did the President Kill an American Teenager?
While we heard Anwar al-Awlaki’s name numerous times through the hearing, another drone target of the Obama administration didn’t get a single mention: al-Awlaki’s son, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The Denver-born teenager waskilled in an airstrike two weeks after his father died. We know hardly anything about his death, and the administration has not been eager to give answers.
3. Are there ANY Qualifications for Authorizing Death Sentences?
Mr. Brennan described waterboarding as “reprehensible” and “something that should not be done,” but refused on multiple occasions to call it torture. Why? Because, as Brennan reminded us over and over, he is “not a lawyer.” While Senator Carl Levin, pressed him on torture, no one took the opportunity to question the drone architect on the broad language used to justify targeting U.S. citizens, as revealed by a leaked DOJ white paper this week. The memo made headlines. In particular, civil liberties advocates took issue with a section detailing how “informed, high-level officials” get to decide if a target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”
Blogger Marcy Wheeler notes the absurdity of Brennan appealing to legal ignorance to deflect on torture, while claiming the authority to give out death sentences: “In other words, according to the guy who has been acting as judge and jury for the last four years, the guy who has been acting as judge and jury is completely incompetent to act as judge and jury.”
4. Why did the Obama administration wait until election season to codify rules for assassinating people?
The New York Review of Books’ David Cole raised this excellent question before Brennan’s hearing took place. While committee members did grill Brennan on transparency with the drone program, we didn’t get a clear picture on why “Terror Tuesdays” went on for so long without some set rules. As Cole put it, “Don’t you think there should have been clear rules and fair procedures in place before the Obama administration ordered the killing of hundreds of human beings?” Furthermore, Cole adds that any rules that are adopted won’t apply to Pakistan.
5. Don't you see a problem with “signature strikes?”
Committee members failed to ask why the Obama administration should have the power to kill people under the doctrine of “signature strikes.” As the New York Times puts it:
Originally that term was used to suggest the specific ‘signature’ of a known high-level terrorist, such as his vehicle parked at a meeting place. But the word evolved to mean the “signature” of militants in general — for instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by extremist groups.
In other words, Obama can order drone strikes on people who look suspicious in the wrong place at the wrong time. As The Nation’s George Zornick points out, the “vast majority” of drone targets aren’t senior-ranking Al Qaeda terrorists, but “low-level militants.”
Of course, this list could go on. As Brennan gets inevitably sworn in, Americans should keep these questions on their minds, and lawmakers need to make sure the new CIA Director is at least held accountable to the few answers they got from him yesterday.
Brennan Welcomes 'Discussion' About Drones, Defends Policy on Strikes
Protesters hold signs as John Brennan arrives to testify at his confirmation hearing Thursday. Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.
As President Obama's choice to be the next director of the CIA, John Brennan faced tough questions Thursday at his confirmation hearing from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee frustrated with the administration's approach to fighting terrorism.
And lawmakers weren't the only ones troubled by aspects of the administration's terror-fighting strategy. Brennan was repeatedly interrupted during his opening statement by protesters voicing their displeasure with the administration's targeted killing of American citizens abroad suspected of joining al-Qaida.
Brennan said he supported "public discussion" of the administration's efforts, but at the same time he gave a staunch defense of the use of drone strikes.
"We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat," Brennan said. "So we need to make sure that there's an understanding. And the people that were standing up here today, I think 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 make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., asked Brennan to square comments he made in 2007 that harsh interrogation methods had "saved lives" with other statements that the CIA should not be in the "detention business."
"I clearly had the impression, as you said, when I was quoted in 2007 that there was valuable intelligence that came out from those interrogation sessions. That's why I did say that they saved lives," Brennan responded.
But Brennan added that a recently completed intelligence committee report that found enhanced interrogation techniques were not effective "raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time."
"Now I have to determine what -- based on that information as well as what CIA says what the truth is. And at this point, senator, I do not know what the truth is," Brennan said.
Senators also pressed Brennan on issues such as waterboarding and national security leaks. NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman reported on the hearing Thursday. You can watch the segment here or below:
As of Thursday Brennan's confirmation appeared likely, despite the close examination of his record and administration policies. If installed as director, the tough questions will most certainly continue for Brennan, as lawmakers continue their push for greater oversight of the administration's terror-fighting practices.
JEFFREY BROWN: The man picked by President Obama to lead the Central Intelligence Agency was called today to defend his positions in the war on terror.
John Brennan's Senate confirmation hearing revolved around several hotly debated policies.
NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman has our report.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-Calif.: It will stop again.
KWAME HOLMAN: Even before the hearing got truly under way, protesters from CODEPINK disrupted John Brennan's opening statement, signaling that passions were running high on the targeted killing of terror suspects.
WOMAN: They won't even tell Congress what countries we are killing children.
" title="Read Margaret Warner's recent post, "Brennan Beyond Drones" here."/>
Read Margaret Warner's recent post, "Brennan Beyond Drones" here.
KWAME HOLMAN: The interruptions continued, and the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, ordered the room temporarily cleared.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: We're going to halt the hearing. I am going to ask that the room be cleared and that the CODEPINK associates not be permitted to come back in.
KWAME HOLMAN: Once the hearing resumed, Brennan defended U.S. actions in the war on terror, but he acknowledged the CIA is not immune from scrutiny.
JOHN BRENNAN, CIA Director Nominee: I have publicly acknowledged that our fight against al-Qaida and associated forces has sometimes involved the use of lethal force outside the hot battlefield of Afghanistan.
Accordingly, it is understandable that there is great interest in the legal basis, as well as the thresholds, criteria, processes, procedures, approvals and reviews of such actions. I have strongly promoted such public discussion with the Congress and with the American people, as I believe that our system of government and our commitment to transparency demand nothing less.
KWAME HOLMAN: Late Wednesday, Mr. Obama directed that members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees be shown a classified memo on drone strikes abroad.
It lays out the legal rationale for targeting American terror suspects. Mr. Brennan helped manage the program. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden had pressed for release of the memo. He went directly to the issue during his first pass at questioning Brennan.
SEN. RON WYDEN, D-Ore.: What should be done next to ensure that public conversation about drones, so that the American people are brought into debate and have a full understanding of what rules the government is going to observe when it conducts targeted killings?
JOHN BRENNAN: I think there is a misimpression on part of some American people who believe that we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat.
So we need to make sure that there's an understanding. And the people that were standing up here today, I think 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 make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths.
KWAME HOLMAN: Brennan is a 25-year veteran of the CIA, and now the president's counterterror adviser. His name first surfaced as a candidate for director in 2008, but he withdrew amid questions about his past statements on enhanced interrogation, especially water-boarding.
Michigan Democrat Carl Levin took up that issue today.
SEN. CARL LEVIN, D-Mich.: My question is this. In your opinion, does water-boarding constitute torture?
JOHN BRENNAN: The attorney general has referred to water-boarding as torture. Many people have referred to it as torture.
And, as you well know and as we have had the discussion, Senator, the term torture has a lot of legal and political implications. It is something that should have been banned long ago. It never should have taken place, in my view. And, therefore, if I were to go to CIA, it would never in fact be brought back.
KWAME HOLMAN: But Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia wanted to know if Brennan stood by previous comments he had made asserting harsh interrogation methods produced results.
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, R-Ga.: In a Nov. 2007 interview, you said that info from the interrogation techniques -- quote -- "saved lives" -- close quote. But you also say that CIA should be out of the detention business.
Your view seems to be that even if we could save American lives by detaining more terrorists using only traditional techniques, it would be better to kill them with a drone or let them go free, rather than detain them. Can you explain the logic in that argument?
JOHN BRENNAN: I respectfully disagree with, Senator. I never believe it's better to kill a terrorist than to detain him. 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.
I clearly had the impression, as you said, when I was quoted in 2007 that there was valuable intelligence that came out from those interrogation sessions. That's why I did say that they saved lives.
I must tell you, Senator, that reading this report from the committee raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time. Now I have to determine what -- based on that information as well as what CIA says what the truth is. And at this point, Senator, I do not know what the truth is.
KWAME HOLMAN: North Carolina Republican Richard Burr zeroed in on CIA leaks, pressing Brennan for his position on publicly sharing covert operations.
SEN. RICHARD BURR, R-N.C.: Do you think that there is any situation where it's legal to disclose to the media or the public these tales of covert action programs?
JOHN BRENNAN: I do not think it is ever appropriate to improperly disclose classified information to anybody who doesn't have legitimate access to it and has the clearances for it.
RICHARD BURR: Could you provide to the committee any times that you were given the authority to release classified information?
JOHN BRENNAN: I have never provided classified information to reporters. I engage in discussions with reporters about classified issues that they might have had access to because of unfortunate leaks of classified information.
And I frequently work with reporters, if not editors of newspapers to keep out of the public domain some of this country's most important secrets. And so I engage with them on those issues. But after working in the intelligence profession for 30 years and being at CIA for 25 years, I know the importance of keeping those secrets secret.
KWAME HOLMAN: There was no indication that the security of administration policies has hurt Brennan's chances. He's still expected to win confirmation by the Intelligence panel and the full Senate.
RAY SUAREZ: Online, find Margaret Warner's blog post about the impact Brennan has had on the nation's counterterrorism policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment