Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Outcry as Bush Nominates Illegal Spying Advocate for CIA

The Progress Report. Posted May 8, 2006.


Bush's nominee for the new CIA chief represents a change for the worse: more spying, more deceiving Congress, and closer ties with Rumsfeld.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On Friday, Porter Goss unexpectedly resigned as head of the CIA, leaving behind an "utterly irresponsible" 18-month tenure at the agency and unanswered questions about his hurried departure. Today, the White House nominated deputy director of national intelligence Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden as Goss's successor. "Bottom line, I believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time. We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) yesterday on Fox News Sunday, voicing the bipartisan concerns of lawmakers.

Hayden has demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and has misled Congress under oath. His close ties to Vice Presidency Cheney, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, and the Department of Defense have led many members of Congress to conclude he is wrong man to gain the trust of the intelligence community and clean up the CIA after the "chaos" left by Goss.

'Under the sway' of Rumsfeld

Over the weekend, a bipartisan group of lawmakers spoke out opposing the nomination of a military officer to a civilian agency. If Hayden is confirmed, "military officers would run all the major spy agencies, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency." One former intelligence official said, "It seems to me the Pentagon grows even stronger now.... Every time there's a change, it moves in that direction." "I think...putting a general in charge is going to send the wrong signal through the agency here in Washington, but also to our agents in the field around the world," said Hoekstra yesterday, who also added that there will "be the perception in the CIA" that Hayden would be under the sway of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

One of Goss's largest challenges at the CIA was gaining the trust of career officers, who resented that he brought in a group of his unqualified aides -- called "the Gosslings" by CIA insiders -- and appointed them to top positions. Even if Hayden retires from the military, he is unlikely to be trusted as the committed independent advocate that the CIA needs. "Now, just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a striped suit, a pinstriped suit versus an air force uniform, I don't think makes much difference," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). Senate Intelligence Committee Pat Roberts (R-KS), who in 2005 called Hayden "outstanding," yesterday refused to offer his endorsement of the administration's nominee: "I'm not in a position to say that I am for General Hayden and will vote for him."

Hayden unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment

Hayden has demonstrated an "astounding lack of knowledge" about his job as an intelligence official, fundamentally misunderstanding constitutional protections. In a speech on Jan. 23, Hayden boasted that he was knowledgeable on the Fourth Amendment: "[B]elieve me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth."

But in a question at that same speech, Knight-Ridder reporter Jonathan Landay noted that Hayden "repeatedly referred to the Fourth Amendment's search standard of 'reasonableness' without mentioning that it also demands 'probable cause'"; Hayden continued to deny that the amendment contained any such clause. When Landay asked Hayden if the amendment contains the phrase "probable cause," Hayden bluntly replied, "No." (Read the full text of the Fourth Amendment here.)


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Being a General Officer is not the problem
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 8, 2006 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many 'Flag' (Admiral/General) officers or former officers have served as CIA Director. In fact, the CIA was created from the WWII OSS, which was created and run by the US Army.

This guy however, is another issue. If he is not committed to the traditional understanding of our rights and liberties, he should not be confirmed. That has nothing to do with his being a General in the US Air Force. The 'Civilian Control' crap is what got us into Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and the current mess we are in.

The last time I checked, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki ( wounded Vietnam Veteran and Bosnia Task Force Commander) advised them against their war plan and warned them that proceeding would result in a protracted insurgency. Nobody hates war more than a soldier. Our 'Civilian Control', namely the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld), President (Bush), and Congress went ahead despite his advice. So much for the need for 'Civilian Control'.

It's easy to go to war when your butt is not on the line. Spare me the implication that career military people are warmongering crazies. This guy is a dud, but that's another issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

making bad things worse
Posted by: rsaxto on May 9, 2006 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney/Bush is fixated on making everything worse. They subvert the constitution with illegal practises and they subvert all government agencies by making ever more intrusive the spying on all of us. They are rigging everything worse by creating less democratic voting/vote-counting, less democratic speech, less democratic promotions, less peace. less healthy environment, less healthy diets and more corrupt pill sellers/doctors. Get them the hell out of there before they turn the USA into a third-world nightmare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the government-corporate vacuum cleaner surveillance program?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 9, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a very bad idea for a CIA director to be a military general "in the line of command" which supposedly stretches back to Rumsfeld and Bush. Just more examples of the megalomaniacal power-grabbing tendencies of Bush&Co.

Perhaps it is that Bush doesn't dare appoint anyone to head the CIA except a loyal tool. Is Hayden such a person? He has defended an illegal spying program; he has also repeatedly denied that any 'vacuum cleaner' operation was being conducted. As far as I know, he has not answered any questions about the NSA and telecom interactions, either. For details on 'privatized' spy agencies, see New Zealand news.

Consider this: the evidence seems to point towards the NSA having the ability to intercept all electronic traffic within US borders: that includes all internet and email traffic, all cell phone and land phone calls, all radio signals. There is also a vast amount of video collected in public spaces that spy agencies can sort through. Telecommunication companies have been cooperating with this, and are now being sued; the US government has intervened on their behalf (legal issues on NSA-AT&T lawsuit). The facts are pretty convincing. AT&T has apparently cooperated fully with the NSA; see the techie details and news articles.

Bush said that the NSA 'warrantless' wiretaps were for "quick response" and that the FISA court was for "long-term monitoring". What does that mean? Likely it means that the NSA program simply sucks up all communications in a database which is then searched constantly by...?employees? Who exactly has access to all this data? Bush reauthorized this program numerous times - why was that?

These questions need a whole lot more public examination then they have received so far. Air Force General Hayden denies that a 'vacuum cleaner' operation ever took place. (By the way, if it did that explains why the NSA couldn't go to FISA - they'd have had to obtain a warrant for every single American citizen who used email, phones, etc.).

Why hasn't this question been answered? Maybe General Hayden will be forced to answer it during the course of his hearings... so far the closest he's come to acknowledging anything is to say that he was 'following orders'. Well, that's fine - but could he tell us who, specifically, gave him those orders? Maybe Congress could have Russ Tice, the fired NSA whistleblower come and testify concurrently with General Hayden - a 'compare and contrast the two perspectives' session. Will General Hayden be placed under oath? How many questions will he refuse to answer 'on grounds of national security?"

Isn't this a bit more important then Whitewater land deals and Oval Office trysts with young interns? Shouldn't Rumsfeld and Bush be forced to testify about this program under oath? The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), largely controlled by Steven Cambone, Rumsfeld's lieutenant, was apparently involved in SAP (special access programs) involving undercover 'agents' within US cities . Isn't this against the rules for military covert operations within the US? Isn't this all totally illegal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Just following orders..."? Posted by: chasaturn
clinker
Posted by: cottontail on May 9, 2006 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The relentless march toward fascism roars on. Ignore that at your peril. Can we survive three more years of Bush and the GOP corporate juggernaut? Not a chance. The wonderful American "ideals" that we've always boasted about are already irretrievably in the toilet. The only question is what will emerge from the wreckage that will result from the military madness in which these loonies are engaged. God help our kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And what do you want to bet... ?
Posted by: chasaturn on May 9, 2006 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Golly. Do ya reckon the Senate will confirm his appointment? Gee whiz (and Golly), why wouldn't a roomfull of cowards do exactly as they're told? Buying into the myth of a government for and by the people is getting sort of like the Easter bunny and Santa - or ANY religion, for that matter. Perhaps the French could lend us Madame Guillotine? That would set things right (for a few generations, at least).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HOPE REIGNS FOR RUMSFELD RESIGNATION?
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on May 9, 2006 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Progress Report . . .

I appreciate the dialogue you evoke. I agree the nominee may represent a change for the worse, or . . .

Yesterday, I sat and stroked the story I felt was behind the Hayden appointment. I offer this to you. While it may not be as many expect, the news reports caused me to wonder. Possibly, the rumors were plants. However, as I now watch a Press Conference with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, I wonder.

I invite you to read my missive and share your thoughts. GENERAL HAYDEN NOMINATED. HOPE REIGNS FOR RUMSFELD RESIGNATION? ©

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull. . . Betsy L. Angert
Be-Think

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Illegal?
Posted by: YogiBear on May 9, 2006 11:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Outcry as Bush Nominates Illegal Spying Advocate for CIA

I highly object to the term "illegal." These agents are not illegal! They are simply doing undocumented work.

;?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Who said this?
Posted by: zipper696 on May 10, 2006 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I quote:

"The ...administration has been carrying this country towards war. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to debt which was already the highest we have known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of Congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of The President and his appointees"

An Alternet regular?
A left wing activist?
Jon Stewart?


No. Charles Lindbergh, September 11th, 1941.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Who said this? Posted by: Aussie Kim