If you're counting on your pet Republican to stand up for your personal safety, you're on the wrong planet.
Obama's nominee for CIA chief says drones are more humane than bombs and artillery and that civilian deaths are rare
John Brennan with Dianne Feinstein, the chairman of the Senate committee on intelligence. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters
Barack Obama's nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, has defended drone attacks as a more humane form of warfare ahead of what is expected to be a gruelling Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday.
Hours before the hearing, Obama finally bowed to pressure from Senators who threatened to hold up Brennan's confirmation over the administration's refusal to hand over a 50-page classified opinion providing the legal basis for the killings of US citizens by drone.
But the White House decision to provide the document to senators on Thursday morning was not expected to entirely allay deep concerns about drones which have focused on Brennan, widely seen as the architect of the policy, under which Obama signs off on individual targeted killings.
Brennan was also expected to face tough questioning on a range of other issues, from his past support for torture of alleged terrorists – although he has publicly opposed waterboarding – to whether the CIA has become too militarised.
However, the president's authority to order the killing of Americans by drone strike has drawn some of the strongest concerns from senators. Eleven senators wrote to Obama earlier this week demanding he share the legal rationale for the killings or risk seeing Brennan's confirmation blocked.
Earlier this week, the White House faced further embarrassment over its drones policy when it was revealed that a secret CIA drone base in Saudi Arabia was the launchpad for strikes that killed the US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his son in 2011.
In written answers to questions prepared by the Senate intelligence committee, Brennan defended drone strikes as a more humane form of warfare. He said that "extraordinary care" is taken to ensure they conform to the "law of war principles" — a phrase human rights groups say is notable in that it does not claim to actually adhere to international law.
Brennan said drones are better than bombs and artillery. "They dramatically reduce the danger to US personnel and to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordnance that can cause injury and death far beyond the intended target," he said.
Brennan acknowledged that there have been "instances when, regrettably and despite our best efforts, civilians have been killed."
But he added: "It is exceedingly rare, and much rarer than many allege".
Brennan claimed that Obama has demanded "we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards" in the use of drones. He said the decision on who to target by drone is made on a case-by-case basis that takes account of whether a person is "associated" with al-Qaida and if they pose an "imminent" threat. He cast the definition of imminent threat broadly, to include the possibility that if a suspected terrorist is not killed they could at some future date carry out an attack against the US.
"As the attorney general has stated: the evaluation of whether an individual presents an 'imminent threat' incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States," Brennan said in his written replies.
Human rights groups have said that definition is too broad and effectively opens the way for the president or his senior officials to order the killing of anyone associated with al-Qaida.
Some of the strongest criticism of Brennan's nomination has come from Obama's own party.
Democratic senator and intelligence committee member Ron Wyden said he welcomed the president's release of the legal opinion on drones but said "there are still substantial questions" about the drone programme, Brennan's role in it and whether Obama has accorded himself too much power of life and death.
"I'm committed to making sure that we get all the facts," Wyden told NBC.
"The Founding Fathers thought the president should have significant power in the national security arena. But there have to be checks and balances. You can't just skirt those checks and balances if you think it's inconvenient."
Brennan's appointment has won the backing of the head of the United Nations inquiry into drone strikes, Ben Emmerson, a British lawyer. He told Wired that Brennan will be a moderating influence in the CIA's expanding use of drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Emmerson said that in his role as counterterrorism chief Brennan has "had the job of reining in the more extreme positions advanced by the CIA.
"By putting Brennan in direct control of the CIA's policy [of targeted killings], the president has placed this mediating legal presence in direct control of the positions that the CIA will adopt and advance, so as to bring the CIA much more closely under direct presidential and democratic control," Emmerson told Wired.
"It's right to view this as a recognition of the repository of trust that Obama places in Brennan to put him in control of the organization that poses the greatest threat to international legal consensus and recognition of the lawfulness of the drone programme."
That claim is likely to be met with scepticism in Congress and among human rights groups, which see Brennan as at the forefront of carving out the increasing reliance on drones in the fight against al-Qaida.
At Thursday's hearing, Brennan is also expected to face intense questioning over his views on the CIA's use of torture on alleged terrorists. He told the Senate intelligence committee in his written replies that as deputy executive director of the CIA after 9/11 he was aware of the agency's interrogation programme but that he "did not play a role in its creation, execution, or oversight".
Brennan has in recent years attempted to distance himself from CIA abuses. He wrote to Obama in 2008 saying that he was a "strong opponent" of "coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding".
"I strong support the president's ban on such techniques," Brennan said in his written replies to the Senate.
However, critics have noted that previously he defended the use of brutal interrogation techniques — including in a CBS interview in 2007 in which he said they had "saved lives" — and accuse him of shifting with political winds.
Brennan said in his written replies that he considered "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be "counterproductive".
"I think a lot of information, both accurate and inaccurate, came out of interrogations sessions conducted by CIA," he said.
Hours before the hearing, Obama finally bowed to pressure from Senators who threatened to hold up Brennan's confirmation over the administration's refusal to hand over a 50-page classified opinion providing the legal basis for the killings of US citizens by drone.
But the White House decision to provide the document to senators on Thursday morning was not expected to entirely allay deep concerns about drones which have focused on Brennan, widely seen as the architect of the policy, under which Obama signs off on individual targeted killings.
Brennan was also expected to face tough questioning on a range of other issues, from his past support for torture of alleged terrorists – although he has publicly opposed waterboarding – to whether the CIA has become too militarised.
However, the president's authority to order the killing of Americans by drone strike has drawn some of the strongest concerns from senators. Eleven senators wrote to Obama earlier this week demanding he share the legal rationale for the killings or risk seeing Brennan's confirmation blocked.
Earlier this week, the White House faced further embarrassment over its drones policy when it was revealed that a secret CIA drone base in Saudi Arabia was the launchpad for strikes that killed the US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and his son in 2011.
In written answers to questions prepared by the Senate intelligence committee, Brennan defended drone strikes as a more humane form of warfare. He said that "extraordinary care" is taken to ensure they conform to the "law of war principles" — a phrase human rights groups say is notable in that it does not claim to actually adhere to international law.
Brennan said drones are better than bombs and artillery. "They dramatically reduce the danger to US personnel and to innocent civilians, especially considered against massive ordnance that can cause injury and death far beyond the intended target," he said.
Brennan acknowledged that there have been "instances when, regrettably and despite our best efforts, civilians have been killed."
But he added: "It is exceedingly rare, and much rarer than many allege".
Brennan claimed that Obama has demanded "we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards" in the use of drones. He said the decision on who to target by drone is made on a case-by-case basis that takes account of whether a person is "associated" with al-Qaida and if they pose an "imminent" threat. He cast the definition of imminent threat broadly, to include the possibility that if a suspected terrorist is not killed they could at some future date carry out an attack against the US.
"As the attorney general has stated: the evaluation of whether an individual presents an 'imminent threat' incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States," Brennan said in his written replies.
Human rights groups have said that definition is too broad and effectively opens the way for the president or his senior officials to order the killing of anyone associated with al-Qaida.
Some of the strongest criticism of Brennan's nomination has come from Obama's own party.
Democratic senator and intelligence committee member Ron Wyden said he welcomed the president's release of the legal opinion on drones but said "there are still substantial questions" about the drone programme, Brennan's role in it and whether Obama has accorded himself too much power of life and death.
"I'm committed to making sure that we get all the facts," Wyden told NBC.
"The Founding Fathers thought the president should have significant power in the national security arena. But there have to be checks and balances. You can't just skirt those checks and balances if you think it's inconvenient."
Brennan's appointment has won the backing of the head of the United Nations inquiry into drone strikes, Ben Emmerson, a British lawyer. He told Wired that Brennan will be a moderating influence in the CIA's expanding use of drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Emmerson said that in his role as counterterrorism chief Brennan has "had the job of reining in the more extreme positions advanced by the CIA.
"By putting Brennan in direct control of the CIA's policy [of targeted killings], the president has placed this mediating legal presence in direct control of the positions that the CIA will adopt and advance, so as to bring the CIA much more closely under direct presidential and democratic control," Emmerson told Wired.
"It's right to view this as a recognition of the repository of trust that Obama places in Brennan to put him in control of the organization that poses the greatest threat to international legal consensus and recognition of the lawfulness of the drone programme."
That claim is likely to be met with scepticism in Congress and among human rights groups, which see Brennan as at the forefront of carving out the increasing reliance on drones in the fight against al-Qaida.
At Thursday's hearing, Brennan is also expected to face intense questioning over his views on the CIA's use of torture on alleged terrorists. He told the Senate intelligence committee in his written replies that as deputy executive director of the CIA after 9/11 he was aware of the agency's interrogation programme but that he "did not play a role in its creation, execution, or oversight".
Brennan has in recent years attempted to distance himself from CIA abuses. He wrote to Obama in 2008 saying that he was a "strong opponent" of "coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding".
"I strong support the president's ban on such techniques," Brennan said in his written replies to the Senate.
However, critics have noted that previously he defended the use of brutal interrogation techniques — including in a CBS interview in 2007 in which he said they had "saved lives" — and accuse him of shifting with political winds.
Brennan said in his written replies that he considered "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be "counterproductive".
"I think a lot of information, both accurate and inaccurate, came out of interrogations sessions conducted by CIA," he said.
Source: Guardian
