A Silver Lining in Bush's New CIA Pick?

The decision taken by President Bush to replace Porter Goss as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was long overdue. Goss was one of the worst possible choices to hold such a critical position, in such a critical period of our nation's history. The many failures of the CIA in the years and months leading up to the terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, were illustrated in vivid Technicolor on that day.

And yet, in responding to these failures, the president not only gutted the CIA by creating an additional layer of bureaucratic morass known as the national intelligence director, thereby diluting the influence and authority of the CIA director, but then appointed a partisan political figure, Porter Goss, to the helm of this scuttled ship. Mr. Goss' tenure will go down in history as one of the worst ever (followed closely by that of George Tenet). That Goss needed replacing goes without saying. But the choice to replace him, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, is mindboggling.

I'm not one of those who line up against the appointment of Gen. Hayden because he is a military officer. I have too much respect for the military and those who wear the uniform of the United States of America to ever collectively impugn their integrity by suggesting that the fact that a person -- an intelligence professional, no less -- is on active duty somehow makes him or her less fit to head the CIA.

Too many men and women of honor, serving on active duty, have held positions within the CIA for the idea that one's status vis-a-vis the armed forces somehow limits their ability to perform within the CIA. In fact, had Gen. Hayden been nominated for the position of CIA director prior to Sept. 11, 2001, I would have been a big supporter. After all, as an officer of active duty, he had sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, an oath I find very attractive when dealing with issues of intelligence that often blur the line between national security and individual civil liberties. In such situations, the only protection we the people have from abuses of power and authority is the Constitution and those sworn to protect it.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Gen. Hayden had gone on the record regarding how assiduous the National Security Agency (NSA) was when it came to protecting the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans. This was at the time that he served as director at the NSA, America's largest spy agency, which, among its primary institutional duties, intercepts and monitors communications relevant to America's security, (i.e., "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 shall 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").

The abuses of power and authority that had occurred from the 1950s through the mid-1970s by the intelligence and law enforcement services of the United States, including the NSA, were the subject of investigations conducted by congressional committees headed by Sen. Frank Church and Rep. Otis Pike, the consequences of which were sweeping reforms that limited the ability of the NSA and other agencies to violate the Fourth Amendment protections afforded American citizens. The end result of these investigations was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, which created a framework, complete with a special court, to approve and monitor any activities undertaken by U.S. intelligence agencies that might construe a violation of an American citizen's Fourth Amendment rights.