Gen Michael Hayden? Be Very Afraid

[Nbadan]

http://uweb.superlink.net/~rriegler/mb/6point3/klink.jpghttp://eyeball-series.org/hayden8.jpg
Colonel Klink?!?


So the big kahuna they are talking about to replace Porter Goss is General Michael Hayden. Yes. That General Michael Hayden: "Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer questions about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner." (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)

And this...


General Hayden: "I'm disappointed I guess that perhaps the default response for some is to assume the worst. I'm trying to communicate to you that the people who are doing this, okay, go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids play soccer in Laurel, and they know the law. They know American privacy better than the average American, and they're dedicated to it. So I guess the message I'd ask you to take back to your communities is the same one I take back to mine. This is focused. It's targeted. It's very carefully done. You shouldn't worry."

All those pesky constitutional laws are only for bad people, you see. Good people don't have to follow them. you know, people like John "death squads" Negroponte, Hayden's good friend and boss shouldn't have to worry.

Digby.blogspot (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_digbysblog_ar... 1707)

More:


Knight-Ridder's Jonathan Landay questioned Gen. Michael Hayden at the National Press Club in January:

Landay: "...the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to violate an American's right against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

Gen. Hayden: "No, actually - the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But the --"

Gen. Hayden: "That's what it says."

Landay: "The legal measure is probable cause, it says."

Gen. Hayden: "The Amendment says: unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "But does it not say 'probable cause'?"

Gen. Hayden : "No! The Amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."

Landay: "The legal standard is probable cause, General -- "

Gen. Hayden : "Just to be very clear ... mmkay... and believe me, if there's any Amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. Alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable'"

Crooks and Liars (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/06.html#a8184)

Here is what the 4th Amendment says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Nbadan]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/TDS-Hayden-Goss%20endorsement.jpg

What are the odds that Bush would use almost the exact same words to nominate Porter Goss, as he would to nominate Gen. Hayden?

Don't answer that. (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Hayden-Goss-endorsement.wmv)

[xrayzebra]

What odds are you giving that he WONT be confirmed dan? Here is a little
opinion piece for you to chew on. Might even make you think a little.


CIA choice is savvy politics

By Linda Chavez

May 10, 2006

President Bush's selection of Gen. Michael Hayden to replace CIA Director Porter Goss has stirred controversy even among Republicans, but the choice may be more savvy than politically risky.

From 1999-2005, Hayden headed up the National Security Agency, and much of the opposition to his nomination will likely come from critics of the NSA's secret surveillance program, which targeted communications between known terrorists overseas and persons in the United States. (my note: please note this
is not domestic wire tapping)


When The New York Times revealed the existence of the program several months ago, Democrats -- and a handful of Republicans -- were quick to question the president's authority to order such intercepts without first obtaining search warrants from a special federal court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. The most outspoken critics suggested impeachment might be justified by the president's action. But the furor has largely died down, and re-focusing on the issue might actually help the president, not hurt him.

From the beginning, the public seemed unconvinced that the warrantless eavesdropping was a gross violation of civil liberties. Most Americans, who clamored for better intelligence in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, didn't buy arguments that the president had no authority in wartime to listen in on conversations or intercept e-mails between known terrorists and their agents in the U.S. without seeking permission from a FISA court. But some members of Congress have pushed ahead to try to rein in the program nonetheless.

Last month, Democrats in the House failed to attach amendments to the 2007 Intelligence Authorization bill to restrict the NSA program. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., continues to push for more operational details on the program. He has held four hearings so far and, on Sunday, warned that he might use confirmation hearings as "leverage" to get more information.

Specter told The Washington Post that "this gives us an opportunity to ask these questions and insist on some answers if the Senate is of a mind to deny confirmation," but the White House doesn't seem especially worried.

Hayden has been the administration's point man in explaining the necessity of the program. Since he's not an attorney, no one expected him to make the legal arguments for the president's inherent or explicit authority to order surveillance without first obtaining warrants -- a more difficult job that fell to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

For the most part, the legal issues were debated more on the opinion pages of the newspaper than they were around kitchen tables, where the reflexive attitude was, maybe if we'd been doing this all along, 9/11 might not have happened. Confirmation hearings won't change that dynamic. Hayden will still be speaking of the necessity and effectiveness of the program and can't be expected to answer arcane legal arguments about presidential authority.

Even though the president's poll numbers continue to slip, with USA Today's most recent survey showing him at only 31 percent approval, the one area in which Bush continues to show strength is fighting terrorism. In the USA Today/Gallup poll taken April 28-30, Americans were almost evenly split on whether the president was doing a decent job on terrorism. With congressional elections just months away -- and prospects for the GOP not looking particularly cheery -- the White House should be trying to play to its strengths, and Gen. Hayden's nomination does just that.

Of course it would be good if Congress fulfilled its obligation to advise and consent by actually voting based on the nominee's qualifications for the job. But in a bitterly partisan Congress, and among an equally divided public, merit doesn't carry the weight it should. It's all about politics.

In this instance, however, the politics line up favorably for the president. Gen. Hayden is likely to get a tough grilling, but the Democrats have shown no stomach for a real fight on the NSA program, and the Republicans can hardly lead the charge against an extraordinarily well-qualified presidential pick. The general may have to give up his stars to take the job, despite ample precedent for an active-duty military head of intelligence, but the president will win the day.

Read more about Betrayal by Chavez, LindaLinda Chavez is Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Townhall.com partner organization, and the author of Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics.

Copyright © 2006 Creators

Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/lindachavez/2006/05/10/196839.html

dan, how about the approval rating on Bush's fight on terrorism, does it surprise
you. Evenly split....I say that means about 50 percent approval rating. Wouldn't
you?