Drone Doublespeak: John Brennan Offers Few Details on 'Targeted Killings'

CIA nominee pledges to "optimize" both transparency and secrecy.

Updated: February 7, 2013 | 5:42 p.m.
February 7, 2013 | 5:01 p.m.

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) ()

If you're wondering why and how President Obama is waging drone warfare against suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, CIA director nominee John Brennan cleared things up at his confirmation hearing Thursday. The White House will “optimize transparency,” he said, and “optimize secrecy.”

Still confused? Other than doublespeak and vague assurances to share more information with the Senate Intelligence Committee, Brennan shed little light on Obama’s drone policies.

“People are reacting to a lot of falsehoods out there,” the CIA veteran complained, though he offered few actual facts.

Democrats and Republicans on the committee accused the administration of stonewalling over its justification for “targeted killings” of terrorist suspects, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen and radical imam who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in September 2011.

A Justice Department “white paper” outlining the legal basis, leaked to NBC in advance of the hearing, suggests that U.S. citizens suspected of working with al-Qaida can be targeted with little or no due process, transparency, or oversight by Congress or the courts.

Under questioning, Brennan said he opposed President George W. Bush’s torture policies while serving in that administration. Torturing suspected terrorists is “reprehensible,” Brennan said. But apparently it’s OK to kill them—even if, as the Justice Department memo allows, there is no evidence of an imminent attack against the United States.

“I have never believed it is better to kill a terrorist rather than detain him,” Brennan told the panel. In fairness, Brennan is limited by what he can say in a public setting; secrecy is a vital part of national security.  He is paying a price for Obama's lack of transparency and borderline hypocrisy on drone warfare.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon led the charge against the policy, calling it troubling to give “any president unfettered power to kill an American without checks and balances.”

He accused the Justice Department of reneging on Obama’s promise to share relevant memos with the panel, a pledge made under pressure the night before the hearing.

Wyden asked whether U.S. citizens suspected of consorting with al-Qaida could be killed within the nation’s boundaries. There was no immediate reply—perhaps because, as promised, secrecy has been optimized.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Most Read Articles
Expert Opinions
Transportation Experts

Oops! Judge Slams Local Public-Private Deal

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Robert L. Darbelnet: Public Scrutiny Essential

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Jack Gerard: Minor Policies, Major Consequences

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 16, 2013

Latest Response by Jonathan Silver: Woefully Little, Better Than Nothing

More Expert Opinions »
Columns
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
Norm Ornstein: Washington Inside Out

Eric Cantor’s Caucus Thwarts His Push for an Alternative Agenda

May 16, 2013
Cantor has learned that the tea-party movement he helped foster won’t fall in line behind his efforts to push an alternative conservative agenda.
More Columns »