mr. brennan. mr. vice chairman, please proceed. >> thank you very much. mr. the chair in congratulating you on your nomination. welcoming you to the committee today. and i don't have to remind you because you are a career individual of the importance of your nomination to head the central intelligence agency. i also want to welcome your family and thank them for their support of you during your years of commitment to our government. also want to say as the chairman did that how much we appreciate mike morel and i'm very pleased to see that in your prepared statement you mention mike and his contribution to the central intelligence agency and that you intend to keep mike in place. he is a very valued public servant and a guy who's stepped in to very difficult situation now twice and has led with great leadership and provided the agency with what was needed. it will be your responsibility if confirmed to lead the cia as our nation continues to face significant national security challenges. while we have heard a lot in recent months about al qaeda being decimated

mr. brennan's nomination. john brennan by all accounts will be a strong leader, guided firmly by the law and his strong ethical code. he has assured the committee in his response to pre-hearing questions that he will be independent from political influence. he will seek only to provide the president, the congress, and other leaders, with his best analysis and advice. his responses to the committee's questions are available on the committee's website. of course the committee must conduct its due diligence on such an important nominee, some members are going to have questions in a range of topics, including his plans for directing the agency, a major national security challenges we face, positions and actions he has taken in his current and past jobs. also of interest will be mr. brennan's the view on the use of targeted the the force in counter-terrorism operations. mr. brennan has been one of the few administration officials able to speak publicly about such issues. members will certainly want to understand his

mr. brennan's nomination. john brennan by all accounts will be a strong leader, guided firmly by the law and his strong ethical code. he has assured the committee in his response to pre-hearing questions that he will be independent from political influence. he will seek only to provide the president, the congress, and other leaders, with his best analysis and advice. his responses to the committee's questions are available on the committee's website. of course the committee must conduct its due diligence on such an important nominee, some members are going to have questions in a range of topics, including his plans for directing the agency, a major national security challenges we face, positions and actions he has taken in his current and past jobs. also of interest will be mr. brennan's the view on the use of targeted the the force in counter-terrorism operations. mr. brennan has been one of the few administration officials able to speak publicly about such issues. members will certainly want to understand his

mr. brennan. mr. vice chairman, please proceed. >> thank you. mr. brennan, i join the chair in congratulating you on your nomination and welcome you to the committee today. i do not have to remind you, because you are a career individual, of the importance of your nomination to head the cia. i also want to welcome your family and thank them for their support of you during your years of commitment to our country. also i want to just say, as determined to it, how much we appreciate mike morell, and i am very pleased to see that in your prepared statements he mentions his contribution to the cia and that you intend to keep mike in place. he is a very valued public servant and a guy who has stepped into very difficult situations now twice and has led the commitment and has provided the kind of leadership the agency has needed. mr. brennan, if confirmed as the next director, it will be your responsibility to lead the c.i.a. as our nation continues to face significant national security challenges. while we have heard a lot about al qaeda being decimated an

mr. brennan. you have said publicly that you believe waterboarding is inconsistent with american values. it's something that should be prohibited, goes beyond the bounds of what a civilized society should employ. my question is this, in your opinion does waterboarding constitute torture? >> the attorney general has referred to waterboarding as torture. many people have referred to as torture. attorney general is the premiere law enforcement officer and lawyer of this country. 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. >> do you have a personal opinion as to whether waterboarding is torture? >> i have a personal opinion that waterboarding is reprehensible and is something that should not be done. i'm not a lawyer and i can't address that q

mr. brennan, is that they were the ones directly above you. mr.aughlin is quoted in the press as saying he never heard from you. and he doesn't doubt that you did this, but he says that he never heard from you. we have not seen anybody who has come forward and said that they heard objections from you with respect to these programs. moving on, your boss at the cia said that you had a role in setting the parameters of the program, and i quote, "helping to seek justice department approval for the techniques." he went to say that the job would have been part and parcel with that process. how does that purport that you had no role in the programs in the execution or oversight? >> i respectfully disagree with my colleague. and the wall street journal article, he goes onto say that i was not involved in many elements of the program. but i was not involved in the establishment of the program. i had awareness that the agency was going to do this and going forward on it, and i had access into the activities there, but i wasn't involved in any management str

mr. brennan, so you can be advised. >> you've been listening to john brennan, c.i.a.orrect -- director nominee under president bush. we heard dramatic, heated, tense testimony. the most dramatic was when senator marco rubio asked why we would let tunisians release the only -- there's a full wrapup on special report at 6:00 p.m. i've going to the five but this is dramatic testimony we'll wrap up. in the meantime, don't change the challenge. i'll remike and go do the five. see you tomorrow. hi. hi. i'm here to pick up some cacti. it should be under stephens. the verizon share everything plan for small business. get a shareable pool of data... got enough joshua trees? ... on up to 25 devices. so you can spend less time... yea, the golden barrels... managing wireless costs and technology and more time driving your business potential. looks like we're going to need to order more agaves... ah! oh! ow! ... and more bandages. that's powerful. sharble data plus unlimited talk and text. now save $50 on a droid razr maxx hd by motorola. i work for 47 different companies. well, t

mr. brennan. if confirmed you are going to lead an extraordinary agency with extraordinary people who perform extraordinary services. most of them totally unknown by the american people. most people don't think about that. what it is -- never have it known. those of us who sit up here do a life of public service and want everything we do to be known. that's how we get elected. it's a very different ethic than the central intelligence agency and i respect it very much. i want to go the earned income tax credit, to the enhanced interrogation techniques. i'm for both. not for the second. >> no, you're not. >> for the first. you talk about the 6,000 pages. what i want to say and if the second round comes, i will. i will pour out my frustration of the sen federal intelligence agency and dealing with dealing with various administrations about trying to get information. why was it that they felt that we were so unworthy of being trusted? why was it they were willing to talk to pat roberts, me or sax xi c

mr. brennan, that is your shop. do you have any knowledge about why senator graham's question was not to be answered? >> there is a longstanding tradition understanding of respecting the executive privilege that exists in the presidency in terms of what information is provided to the president or advice, counsel, to him. i would suspect that that question gets into this issue of the executive privilege which i think again has been a long standing tradition. >> are you sure that is the answer or do you think? >> i do not understand, because that will not be a request coming to me. >> i understand, so my direction to you, at what i ask you, is that you review that. we will get you the and notation, if necessary. secretary panetta told us it was detainee information that was key to them finding the courier and bin laden. were you briefed by any of the analysts who tracked down bin laden? >> before the operation? >> yes. >> yes, absolutely. >> is that the information given to you, that it came from interrogation of deta

mr. brennan? eporter: well, talking to folks, the democrats here in d.c., there is a lot of confidence in brennan's performance because it's the complete opposite of hagel. they felt brennan looked self-assured. he gave a spirited defense to the administration's policies and most importantly he was also humble. he said there should be more information put forward in terms of when these drone strikes occur if civilians are injured. this hearing for mr. brennan also sort of placated a lot of democrats on that committee because the white house released papers from the department of justice explaining the legal rationale behind the drone strikes. so overall, the feel something that john brennan performed admirably, that he will move forward and he will be a good director of the cia. they felt that the committee hearing went as well as it could be. what's interesting, martin, john brennan has 25 years experience at the cia and that's really what we've heard. he's the most experienced person to take over

mr. brennan claimed, he had no involvement with the enhancement interrogation program? >> he would not have had any direct involvement in the program. obviously, as you said today he's had his own personal views and obviously he's open to review the exhaustive evidence that the intelligence committee has put together regarding its eth cassie. >> john: so you're satisfied as deputy executive director of the c.i.a., he had no knowledge that this was going on? >> well, i said, you know, as he said he had a view. he had some knowledge that this was not in his chain of command. he said he had some casual discussions with his colleagues but no indication he offered his advice up the chain of command. >> john: he came out strong against water boarding. the committee pushed him hard on white house stonewalling when it comes to documents and other information. do you think anything will change if he's confirmed or is this a dance they go through every other nominee? >> actually, there has been a little bit of a change already and the committee does have some leverage in terms of

mr. brennan as much as the other members. i enjoyed our meeting together and as the chairman has indicated, john brennan's long career of public service and his record have prepared him to be director of the cia. he served for 25 years at the agency in the field and at headquarters including as deputy executive director in saudi arabia and as refer to to president since 9/11. he has been on the front lines in the fight against al qaeda including standing up the national counter-terrorism center. his -- he has enormous appreciation from the men and women of the ca and the work they do, often in the shadows, to keep our nation safe. one thing i was also impressed by in our meeting was that mr. brennan has been an advocate for greater transparency in our counter-terrorism policy and for hearings for the rule of law. as a member and a member of this oversight committee, i appreciate that. as the president said, the imperative to secure the nation must not come at the sacrifice of our laws or ideals. this needs never be an either-o

mr. brennan's field of expertise. mr. the subject in a "washington post" profile that ran about him last october. the acting director of the cia from whom mr. brennan would take over if he is confirmed, that acting director raised the issue in an article "the new york times" published about the cia in december. and now the man, the republican senator who is threatening to hold up the brennan nomination so the acting director has to stay on, this republican senator, he too says that he agrees that something big needs to be changed. >> what we really need to do is take this whole program out of the hands of the central intelligence agency and put it into the department of defense where you have adequate oversight, you have committee oversights, you have all the things that are built in as our oversight the department of defense. but since when is the intelligence agency supposed to be an air force of drones that goes around killing people? i believe that it's a job for the department of defense. >> so says john mccain. so s

mr. brennan. the way he has been and i find it totally, totally -- i can't say how -- when they take a swear that they are going to take an oath to defend the united states foreign and domestic, that does not say they are going to put boots on the grounds. when they make them take that oath, it doesn't matter. if they have happen to be on the wrong side at the time when the chips are down, they are a target. i'm hoping for comment. host: thank you for that. senator feinstein asked a number of times of the so-called targeting killings, these drone strikes. here's what john brennan had to say during one of the exchanges. >> i would like to ask you about the status of the administration's efforts to institutionalize rules and procedures for the conduct of drone strikes. in particular, how you see your role as c.i.a. director in that approval process. >> as this committee knows and i'm sure wants to continue to protect certain covert action activities, but let me talk about the counterterrorism progra

mr. brennan. >> thank you, chairman.ppear before you today as the president's nominee to lead the central intelligence agent. i'm grateful to president obama for sending my name forward. thank you for your service to our nation and strong support for those who defend it. this includes the extraordinary men and women of the cia, and inintelligence community so many of whom like me call virginia home and call you our senator. i would the not be here today without the love and support of my wife kathy, my life partner and intelligence professionals has made numerous sacrifices over the yea years. >> would you pause mr. brennan. if you would remove that individual, please, quickly as you can, thank you. [audience member talking] >> mr. brennan, please procedure. >> my wife kathy like the spouses of other service intelligence officials has made numerous sacrifices baring the brunt of family responsibility because of my profession and tribute to my three children who like the children of many cia officers and other national se

mr. brennan. >> after leaving the c.i.a. november 2007, brennan defended the enhanced methods saying they have, quote, saved lives. today brennan offered this explanation. >> i had expressed my personal objections and views to my agency colleagues about certain of those eit's such as water boarding, nudity and others where i professed my personal objection to it. but i did not try to stop it because it was something that was being done in a different part of the agency under the authority of others. >> another key question has been high profile leaks which critics say were strategically done to make mr. obama look tough. brennan says he's not the subject of a probe or target. he's a witness. chris. >> mike emmanuel on capitol hill, thanks for that. the confirmation vote fort next defense secretary was held up until the current pentagon chief agreed to answer questions about last september's terrorist attack in libya. today a senate panel got to question leon panetta, national security correspondent jennifer griffin tells us

mr. brennan. back to the article. patrick says, following this stunning and nearly fatal intelligence failure, which prompted members of both the house and senate intelligence oversight committees to call for his resignation, brennan lashed out at the obama administration's critics. in "usa today" editorial, he claimed that the quote, politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear mongering only served the goals of al qaeda. unquote. let me insert here, if he he thinks mr. brennan thinks that questioning failures of the obama administration is contributing to al qaeda, what must bombing innocent people with drones be doing for al qaeda? back to the article, says brennan also defended treating omar farooq as a criminal by having his rights read to him upon arrest and trying him in civilian court rather than transferring the would-be bomber to military custody as an enemy combatant. just days later brennan gave a speech to islamic law students in new york university where he was introduced by the president of the isl

mr. brennan was his top counter-terrorism official while the drone program oversees through. the u.s. government got permission from the justtis department to kill american citizens abroad if they are suspected of having ties to terrorists. they don't necessary i amly have to know about an imminent plot. >> here you have a senior unaccountable doj official who makes determination recent activities lead him to conclude he's an eminent threat you can send a drone to kill him. not torture him but kill him. i am troubled any time government is as nontransparent as this. >>> the white house defended their drone protocol and explained how the drone program keeps people on the american home land safe. >>> we have acknowledged we sometimes use remotely piloted air strikes against specific terrorists in order to protect the united states. we conduct those because they are necessary to mitt late ongoing plots it saves american lives. these strikes are legal, ethical and they are wise. >>> there has only been one drone strike against an american citizen abroad that was back in 2011 when a drone

mr. brennan does for justification tomorrow. sam?> let me add one point to that which is the other thing the administration has done is well, we've been talking about this process, attorney general eric holder has been talking about this process. john brennan has been talking about this process publicly. we have outlined it. and i think there is a role for congress to play. and i would add even for the american public to play to a certain extent in judging what kind of legal justifications the administration is using. i understand the administration doesn't want to set a bad precedent here, but these are weighty matters. >> colonel, what kind of intel are we getting on the ground? i mean we have to be sure that we're not killing innocent people here. >> well, i'm going to say having spent a lot of time in combat, i can tell you any time that we have any combat operation, you're going to have innocent people killed. there is always going to be collateral damage. and indeed in the second world war, we went out of our way to kill civili

mr. brennan? have you had any assurances from the administration that your request for more information, for more transparency will be met? >> the president certainly indicated he is committed to that. in fact, in our conversation on wednesday night when he called to say that he was going to reverse course, make these documents available, and i said i was encouraged by that, he said he was going to begin an extensive discussion with the american people on these issues to look at fleshing out how to play the public into the discussion of the guidelines with respect to modern warfare where we can both protect our nation and be true to our principles and our checks and balances. i think that would be very helpful right now to have that discussion. >> ron wyden, member of the senate intelligence committee, thanks for your time. >> thank you. >>> a check on how wall street will close out the week is up next in the market rundown. and a live picture here of milford, connecticut. we're keeping a close ey

mr. brennan, if you don't know who they are, i have a list.st of all the names and the -- >> all right. i'm going to -- we're going to halt the hearing. i'm going to ask that the room be cleared and that the code pink associates not be permitted to come back in. we've done this five times now and five times are enough. >> five times will be plenty for you code pink associates. associates? i wonder if that is the hierarchy. senator feinstein today clearly wanted to get on with it, right? regardless of how you feel about the cia or killing people outside war zones or john brennan or the senate or for that matter dianne feinstein you kind of have to tip your hat to the code pink folks just on operational grounds, right? i mean, they can get it done. since they started showing up in washington almost a decade ago, even though everybody knows they're coming now, code pink still gets in everywhere. >> fire rumsfeld! >> this hearing is adjourned. >> thou shall not kill. thou shall not kill. >> clear the room. >> reckless behavior. the nra has blood o

mr. brennan yesterday -- about targeting americans.shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law. now, if an american joined the wearmock in world war ii, i don't think anybody would say patton had to get a warrant to shoot them. the difference in this case is time. by and large, as i understand it, these strikes don't happen in a matter of minutes. they happen over -- they're planned over a matter of days and weeks. in the case of an american which i agree with mr. robinson is pretty rare. but in the case of targeting an american, i don't see why they can't go to a secret court like the intelligence court that's already been set up and get what amounts to a warrant. this is why we're targeting this person. this is the evidence that they're a member of al qaeda. this is the evidence that they're planning some kind of imminent attack. then i think we could feel more comfortable about -- >> about the concept. >> -- about the protections of the fifth amendment. but the bottom line is i don't think we should also ful

government make decisions as to who should be on their kill list and mr brennan would certainly be the most appropriate person to ask because he is known to have been in charge of the kill list and he's known as the architect of the administration's targeted assassinations program so the question of who the drones are targeting was critical and one of the senators asked john brennan whether there should be at least some judicial oversight over those executions by drones and here's what he said none of those actions or to determine past guilt for those actions that he took the decisions that are made or to take action so that we prevent a future action to protect american lives so the rationale that john brennan gave for not going to court is that the administration is not in the business of punishing individuals but it's in the business of preventing attacks he basically says the u.s. government could execute people for what they haven't done yet you would expect a follow up questions from lawmakers as to how the administration determines the level of threat that these people constitut

government make decisions as to who should be on their kill list and mr brennan would certainly be the most appropriate person to ask because he is known to have been in charge of the kill list and he's known as the architect of the administration's targeted assassinations program so the question of who the drones are targeting was critical and one of the senators asked john brennan whether there should be at least some judicial oversight over those executions by drones and here's what he said none of those actions or to determine past guilt for those actions that he took the decisions that are made or to take action so that we prevent future action to protect american lives so the rationale that john brennan gave for not going to court is that the administration is not in the business of punishing individuals but it's in the business of preventing attacks he basically says the u.s. government could execute people for what they haven't done yet you would expect follow up questions from lawmakers as to how the administration determines the level of threat as these people constitute let'