Is John Brennan committed to fighting radical Jihadists?
Past comments raise concern about CIA nominee
- Duration 5:54
- Date Feb 7, 2013
Past comments raise concern about CIA nominee
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Controversial comments from John -- past are now raising concerns about his commitment to the country's national security.
Now back in 2009 president Obama's nominee to head the CIA.
Who currently serves as the White House's top counter terror advisor refused to admit -- are we are even fighting a war on terrorism.
We -- not waging a war against terrorism because terrorism is about a tactic that will never be defeated any more than that tactic of war will.
Rather such thinking is a recipe for endless conflicts.
We -- not -- war against terror because terror is a state of mind and grief that's not all just a few months later he said this about -- hot.
Nor does President -- -- this challenge as the fight against jihadist.
Describing terrorists in this way using a legitimate terms of hot.
This means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.
-- giving these -- is the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.
So these comments have more we'll -- it really confirm a CIA director who calls -- hide a legitimate Tenet of Islam joining me now with some answers senators James ration.
Senator likely -- -- to the program.
Senator Mike Lee.
Let the -- -- a legitimate Tenet of -- would not.
The war on terrorism.
Is going to be our next CIA director.
These are partly mainstream beliefs -- on and hardly something that we would come to expect of our nation's.
Top intelligence officer and so this is a very significant concern and with good reason.
But what do you think senator -- -- -- -- I have a -- you know.
Little philosophical for me I'd rather see somebody who's actually interest in the neck killing terrorists in the -- them out of America hadn't and out of our way.
I don't we now have I guess the new Obama and Miranda rights -- -- you know you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and be used against you all and Obama has a right to kill you.
Let's go back and look at -- on waterboarding and compared to where we now stand with this new memo on.
Using drones to kill American citizens does take a look.
We all have seen -- -- fight against terrorists sometimes let us to strayed from our ideals as a nation.
Tactics such as waterboarding.
Were not in keeping with our values.
And these practices have -- right we terminated and should not and will not happen again.
I believe -- and Obama is absolutely correct.
Such practices not only failed to advance -- counterterrorism efforts to actually set back our efforts.
They -- recruitment bonanza for terrorists.
Increase the determination of our enemies and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us.
-- would be because generally would -- be a recruitment bonanza put terrorists had an increase in the determination.
Of our enemies.
If he is drone strikes and kill people.
-- that's the great irony and of all this is that on the one hand you have this administration sending that signal that don't know water boarding.
It can't happen and then at the same time we're told.
By the way the US government reserves the right to kill an American citizen.
Based on the finding that they present in imminent threat to American national security and oh by the way were -- reinventing redefining.
The term imminent so that means something other than an imminent threat.
-- they don't define what imminent is they don't define -- recently is so it's indiscriminate Megan basically decided manipulated anywhere they want.
Senator Robert Reich what the White House is saying that these drone strikes against American citizens.
Without any real criteria is legal ethical and wives but not waterboarding.
Which by the way we only used against three people.
Well he you know -- -- -- were at the incipient stages of a new way of fighting war.
They're going to be fought by using drones and it it as a result of that legal questions come up.
I think probably everyone gets very squeamish when you talk about somebody.
In the executive branch being able to put United States citizen on -- -- -- having said that seeing on the intelligence committee we.
We do review most of the strikes so far.
They've been accurate they've they've done a good job at it.
But having said that I I just can't fathom what would happen if any Republican president.
Had done what the Obama administration.
This fires on they had drone program is concerned that's a good point I mean senator -- any because here Obama is the wouldn't know real criteria.
It's gonna be the judge jury and executioner.
And he's got to allow for the assassination of American citizens is no other term we can't assassinate foreign leaders.
But these are the same people that complained bitterly -- of this serrated.
Bush now my conclusion senator is that all of these Democrats not only -- bush an apology.
But they have politicize war not against throws strikes but we've got to have a criteria.
I'm not against.
Enhance interrogations they are the ones that are inconsistent here your reaction.
Yes well you're exactly right if that fifth amendment's due process clause means anything it ought to mean -- before.
The US government can't snuff out the life of an American citizen.
There ought to be some definable standard against which that citizen is judged against which.
That citizen will -- to be determined to be in imminent threat against the US government.
But this is -- standard list determination as it's been laid out by this memorandum that's been leaked from the Department of Justice.
And it's very troubling.
And to add insult to injury to that shot we have a situation in which.
The Department of Justice won't give us full access to their full legal analysis so we don't really know what the standard is but what little we know about the standard suggested it's no real meaningful standard at all.
All right gentlemen thank you both for being with us appreciate your insight.