This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/08/john-brennan-drones-in-the-dark

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What John Brennan really said: I'm keeping drones in the dark What John Brennan really said: I'm keeping drones in the dark
(35 minutes later)
John Brennan offered a master class in how to get through a meeting without saying anything of substance at his Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing Thursday.John Brennan offered a master class in how to get through a meeting without saying anything of substance at his Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing Thursday.
He flattered the committee by promising that he would never keep them "in the dark" about the drones program, when he has done precisely that during his four years as the president's chief counterterrorism advisor. He avoided the dreaded "torture" word, and managed to get away with only saying that techniques such as waterboarding were "reprehensible". He put on the cloak of virtue and signaled that he privately disapproved of torture, even though he did nothing to stop it and was on record saying it worked. He made no firm commitments and gave little away, and managed to waltz out of the room without most members of Congress even landing a punch.He flattered the committee by promising that he would never keep them "in the dark" about the drones program, when he has done precisely that during his four years as the president's chief counterterrorism advisor. He avoided the dreaded "torture" word, and managed to get away with only saying that techniques such as waterboarding were "reprehensible". He put on the cloak of virtue and signaled that he privately disapproved of torture, even though he did nothing to stop it and was on record saying it worked. He made no firm commitments and gave little away, and managed to waltz out of the room without most members of Congress even landing a punch.
To some event, none of this is surprising. It is rare for presidential nominees to be forthcoming in their confirmation hearing, and even rarer for future CIA directors to offer more than bland statements that the world is a dangerous place. The Obama administration must have celebrated as Brennan will almost certainly be confirmed without having made a binding commitment to limit the drones program.To some event, none of this is surprising. It is rare for presidential nominees to be forthcoming in their confirmation hearing, and even rarer for future CIA directors to offer more than bland statements that the world is a dangerous place. The Obama administration must have celebrated as Brennan will almost certainly be confirmed without having made a binding commitment to limit the drones program.
Nothing will change as a result of this testimony, even if Obama had to briefly allow members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but not their staffs or the public, to view the full Department of Justice memorandum authorizing targeting US citizens with drones for a few hours. While depressing, the Brennan hearing offered a powerful illustration of the administration's obfuscation of the drone program and of the dangerous accretion of power in the executive branch.Nothing will change as a result of this testimony, even if Obama had to briefly allow members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, but not their staffs or the public, to view the full Department of Justice memorandum authorizing targeting US citizens with drones for a few hours. While depressing, the Brennan hearing offered a powerful illustration of the administration's obfuscation of the drone program and of the dangerous accretion of power in the executive branch.
In the hearing, Brennan's chief argument was that the drones were used only as a "last resort" and that the public should not underestimate the "agony" that members of the administration feel when deciding to kill a person overseas. The record, however, does not square with this portrayal.In the hearing, Brennan's chief argument was that the drones were used only as a "last resort" and that the public should not underestimate the "agony" that members of the administration feel when deciding to kill a person overseas. The record, however, does not square with this portrayal.
There is evidence that the Obama administration has knowingly embraced a "kill, not capture," approach to counterterrorism that employs drone strikes to avoid the legal headaches associated with detaining and trying terrorist suspects. As Senator Saxby Chambliss (Republican from Georgia) noted, the Obama administration has captured only one al Qaeda suspect in the last four years, while killing hundreds. There is evidence that the Obama administration has knowingly embraced a "kill, not capture," approach to counterterrorism that employs drone strikes to avoid the legal headaches associated with detaining and trying terrorist suspects. As Senator Saxby Chambliss (Republican from Georgia) noted, the Obama administration has captured only one al-Qaida suspect in the last four years, while killing hundreds.
It is hard to believe that an administration which holds weekly meetings glibly called "Terror Tuesdays" to finalize the targets of drone strikes is doing so only as a painful last resort. Moreover, the administration's leaked Department of Justice memorandum articulates a rationale for drone use which is completely at odds with the idea that drones are a last resort.It is hard to believe that an administration which holds weekly meetings glibly called "Terror Tuesdays" to finalize the targets of drone strikes is doing so only as a painful last resort. Moreover, the administration's leaked Department of Justice memorandum articulates a rationale for drone use which is completely at odds with the idea that drones are a last resort.
The DoJ memo suggests that drone strikes may be used when the threat is "imminent" and when capture of the suspect is "infeasible". Yet both words have been emptied of their normal meaning. According to the Obama administration, imminence "does not require that the United States to have clear evidence of attack…in the immediate future." Similarly, capture of suspects is not feasible if "it could not be physically effectuated during the window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation." This means that capture could be deemed "infeasible" at any point in which the US faces a risk of a target escaping or a government possibly saying no. The DoJ memo suggests that drone strikes may be used when the threat is "imminent" and when capture of the suspect is "infeasible". Yet both words have been emptied of their normal meaning. According to the Obama administration, imminence "does not require that the United States to have clear evidence of attack … in the immediate future." Similarly, capture of suspects is not feasible if "it could not be physically effectuated during the window of opportunity or if the relevant country were to decline to consent to a capture operation." This means that capture could be deemed "infeasible" at any point in which the US faces a risk of a target escaping or a government possibly saying no.
The result is an Orwellian inversion of the meaning of words that enables the administration to pursue drone strikes whenever it sees an advantage in doing so, often as a first resort.The result is an Orwellian inversion of the meaning of words that enables the administration to pursue drone strikes whenever it sees an advantage in doing so, often as a first resort.
With some important exceptions, most members of the Senate Intelligence Committee let this revelation – and indeed the entire question of due process in drones – slide in the confirmation hearing.With some important exceptions, most members of the Senate Intelligence Committee let this revelation – and indeed the entire question of due process in drones – slide in the confirmation hearing.
No one asked who outside constitutes an "informed, high-level" official in the executive branch who can make the decision to kill. No one asked how the administration defines an "associated movement" of al Qaeda. No one asked how the administration determines whether it has the consent of another government to launch strikes on its territory. No one asked how the administration assesses whether someone is a civilian or a militant, which is especially important now that it has been revealed that the administration assumes without evidence that any military-age male in a strike zone must be a combatant. No one asked who outside constitutes an "informed, high-level" official in the executive branch who can make the decision to kill. No one asked how the administration defines an "associated movement" of al-Qaida. No one asked how the administration determines whether it has the consent of another government to launch strikes on its territory. No one asked how the administration assesses whether someone is a civilian or a militant, which is especially important now that it has been revealed that the administration assumes without evidence that any military-age male in a strike zone must be a combatant.
Even the contents of the emerging "drone rulebook" were never addressed publicly by the committee, even though these secret guidelines will set the foundations for drone use for the foreseeable future.Even the contents of the emerging "drone rulebook" were never addressed publicly by the committee, even though these secret guidelines will set the foundations for drone use for the foreseeable future.
Perhaps most alarmingly, no one pressed Brennan on why the administration had the right to launch drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia where the United States is not formally at war.Perhaps most alarmingly, no one pressed Brennan on why the administration had the right to launch drone strikes in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia where the United States is not formally at war.
In his written statement, Brennan argues the administration's line that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2001 provided a blanket legal basis for US operations anywhere, at any time, for the indefinite future. According to Brennan(pdf), no "additional legislation along these lines is necessary".In his written statement, Brennan argues the administration's line that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2001 provided a blanket legal basis for US operations anywhere, at any time, for the indefinite future. According to Brennan(pdf), no "additional legislation along these lines is necessary".
Given the protean nature of al Qaeda as an enemy, and the fact that there is no consensus for what their defeat would look like, this interpretation is effectively a mandate for the president (or any future president) to wage unlimited war anywhere across the globe without an authorization from Congress, in clear violation of the War Powers Act. Given the protean nature of al-Qaida as an enemy, and the fact that there is no consensus for what their defeat would look like, this interpretation is effectively a mandate for the president (or any future president) to wage unlimited war anywhere across the globe without an authorization from Congress, in clear violation of the War Powers Act.
The fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee managed to let Brennan get away with so many non-answers – and even helped him, as Senator Dianne Feinstein encouraged him to remind Americans that Anwar al-Awlaki was a very bad man – shows how enfeebled and deferential to the eresident that the Congress has become.The fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee managed to let Brennan get away with so many non-answers – and even helped him, as Senator Dianne Feinstein encouraged him to remind Americans that Anwar al-Awlaki was a very bad man – shows how enfeebled and deferential to the eresident that the Congress has become.
The Democratic Party shouldn't be happy about any of this. It's a precedent that will doubtlessly empower a future president, perhaps with fewer scruples than Obama, to use the drones program recklessly. It will also change the nature of the US government itself, corroding the restraints that have stopped its worst abuses and enabling a sense of all-encompassing executive power that will gradually threaten the civil liberties of its citizens. The Democratic party shouldn't be happy about any of this. It's a precedent that will doubtlessly empower a future president, perhaps with fewer scruples than Obama, to use the drones program recklessly. It will also change the nature of the US government itself, corroding the restraints that have stopped its worst abuses and enabling a sense of all-encompassing executive power that will gradually threaten the civil liberties of its citizens.
It is incumbent upon the Senate – and all those inclined to give President Obama a free pass on the drones program – to remember James Madison's warning that "no nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." It is incumbent upon the senate – and all those inclined to give President Obama a free pass on the drones program – to remember James Madison's warning that "no nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."