After a welcome disruption by members of CodePink who denounced him and got ejected from the hearing, Brennan said that there is a “misimpression” and a “misunderstanding” about “the care we take” and–he added obscenely–“the agony we go through” in deciding who to kill. (Compare his “agony” to the agony of the families of the innocent people he’s killed with his drones.)
“We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there’s no other alternative,” he said.
Well, then, what about his drone killing of 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, the son of Anwar Al-Awlaki? Was that really a last resort to save lives? Unfortunatley, I didn’t hear a Senator ask that question.
Nor was Brennan reassuring on full disclosure, responding with classic doublespeak: “We need to optimize transparency and at the same time optimize secrecy.”
Obama’s record on civil liberties is absymal, and as happy as I am to have him in charge on domestic policy, he really is no better than Bush on this stuff and in some cases he’s worse, screaming about leftist communist marxist Kenyans notwithstanding. And the justifications of power for why it accepts no oversight sound the same regardless of who’s mouthing them. An entrenched power structure protects itself, first last and always. Understand that, and everything else makes all kinds of sense.
Here’s Code Pink telling Brennan to get bent, and more power to them:
This witness was entitled to be heard, sure, DiFi. So were all the people pointing out that we are in fact killing people, and heaven forbid we spend six seconds asking him about them.
It’s so terribly inconvenient when people interrupt one another. Clear the room, so the grown-ups can talk.
A.
Interesting, Mr. Brennan; could we hear some more, please, about the agony you and your joystick jockeys go through before they fire a missile at someone you’re pretty sure is a bad guy? Could you tell us if actually charging these bad guys with a crime would be too much of a tip-off, so we shouldn’t do that?
Please proceed, Mr. Brennan. We’re all ears.
Sure puts a new face on how our military is winning the hearts and minds of the locals (who are throwing rose petals in their path).
Just less than 2 years ago, I had the misfotune of being seated in the airplane next to a person in civilian garb but I would later find out was a Colonel in I assume the airforce.
They announced to turn off all appliances for take off. She hid her cell to the side (that is intentionally hid it from stewardess). I made the mistake of softly saying they had asked for appliances to be turned off.
She then went off on a tirade that I was just a nerd and progressed through the litany of high-school insults. Including that the problem is that the people she commanded were a bunch of stupid nerds. Eventually started telling me that the armrest between our seats was hers and that mine was the one to my right (being used by the passenger to my right). The oddest part was once the pilot said it was OK to use appliances, she got this vindictive smile on her face and pulling her phone back out. (My interpretation was that she thought that this would cause me pain.)
Anyway, all that said to say that if our military officers are so juvenile and lacking in the ability to portray a picture of social graces – and frankly insulting to their own people – what makes them think they are capable of doing anything but alienating people?
I grew up just behind the Vietnam War. I realize that the “we came back and they spat on us” started as a simile of being coldly received and was then taken literally without anything to back it up. But if they come back like this “lady” then I’d think it would be obvious not to expect any warm receptions.
Heh, when Conyers was Chair of Judiciary he threatened us during a hearing with expulsion from chambers for merely holding up a copy of…the Constitution. Capitol Cops were there with flex cuffs and everything, waiting for the order.
We behaved enough to avoid arrest, since it wasn’t the goal that day…