John Brennan, the man tapped by President Obama to lead the CIA, was asked by a Senate panel why he didn't stop so-called enhanced interrogation techniques when he held a senior position at the agency.
▲ Hide Transcript
▶ View Transcript
Terrifying -- vice chairman Chambliss members of the committee I am honored to appear before you today. As the president's nominee. Would you all please. That's the police to please remove this woman. -- welcome everyone here. That we expect. No clapping we expect no hissing we expect no demonstration. In this room. I am honored to appear before you today as the president's nominee to lead the Central Intelligence Agency that would you cause mr. -- If you would remove add individual qualities. More quickly issued can't I'm very pleased to be joined today by my wife Kathy and my brother Tom. All right. We will not -- and -- Yeah please remove that. All right I'm good am I we're gonna -- the hearing. I'm did ask that the room be cleared. And that the code pink associates not be permitted to come back again. This stepped executive director you receive the daily updates. From the time of Abu -- is captured through that his interrogation. What to what steps did you take to stop C from moving to these techniques unanimously found objectionable at the time. I did not take steps to stop the CIA's use those techniques I was not the chain of command of the program I served as deputy executive director at the time. I expressed my personal objections and views to Miami some agency colleagues. About certain of those EIT such as waterboarding nudity and others were right by professed my personal objections to it. But I do not try to stop it because it was. You know something that was being done in a different part of the agency under the authority of others. Your view seems to be that even if we could save American the last about it anymore -- 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. Are respectfully disagree senator I didn't -- I never believe it's better to kill a terrorist than to detain him. We want to -- as many -- possible so we can elicit the intelligence from them. In inappropriate manner so that we can disrupt follow on terrorist attacks. So -- a strong proponent of doing everything possible short of killing terrorists bringing them to justice and getting an intelligence from them. The future of the drone. And the decisions that. That only the present course can authorize that. But the decision sometimes is passed down has to be that passed down -- -- very accurate manner but the drones are gonna grow there's going to be more and more of that warfare. Not just by us but by other countries including perhaps but people within our own country. What went wrong in the system where there -- systemic failures where there was mismanagement them or inaccurate information was was put forward. Because there -- Covert action activities that are taking place. You know today under the direction management the CIA I would have the obligation to -- strike it takes this committee that all those Covert action. Programs are being run effectively they're being well managed to being overseen and the measures of effectiveness. The results of those programs are an accurate and fair representation. Of what actually is happening. You're fully comfortable this notion that because the -- concluded that they're there to have a legal basis to hold them. We now lost the opportunity to interrogate someone could have provided -- some significant information on the attack him on Gaza. We press. I think the United States government has to respect. These government's right to in fact enforce their -- appropriately. Well we don't wanna do is to have these individuals it's being held in some type of custody that's extrajudicial.