Should Gen. Hayden Be Confirmed or Court-Martialed?

Science > Abortion > Should Gen. Hayden Be Confirmed or Court-Martialed?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"james g. keegan jr."
Date:	20 May 2006 04:45:50 PM
Object:	Should Gen. Hayden Be Confirmed or Court-Martialed?

Should Gen. Hayden Be Confirmed or Court-Martialed?
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Saturday 20 May 2006
"Court-martialed," says one highly-respected former DIRNSA
(which, for the uninitiated, stands for "Director, National Security
Agency"). The comment came amid a private burst of indignation at the
news that Gen. Mike Hayden had bowed to administration pressure to
skirt the law and violate what until then was the NSA's "First
Commandment" - Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on US Citizens.
Another highly respected former DIRNSA, Adm. Bobby Ray Inman, on
May 8, expressed serious reservations over the administration's
flouting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978
by ordering warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. During a New York
Public Library panel discussion including New York Times reporter
James Risen, who originally broke the eavesdropping story, Inman
said, "In my view, this activity was not authorized by a
[congressional] resolution.... There clearly was a line in the FISA
statutes which says you couldn't do this." Inman also pointed out the
"extra sentence put in the bill that said, 'You can't do anything
that is not authorized by this bill.'"
Adm. Inman added, "My problem is not going through the Congress
to revise the statute," if FISA needed to be amended to deal with
issues not anticipated in 1978. He spoke proudly of the earlier ethos
at the NSA, where "it was deeply ingrained that you operate within
the law and you get the law changed if you need to." As for now,
Inman insisted, "What you want is to get away from this idea that
they can continue doing it." He placed the blame squarely on Vice
President ***** Cheney, whose attitude, he said, has not changed from
when he was chief of staff for President Gerald Ford. Inman gave this
account of Cheney's input:
"We don't need law. The president has authorized these in the
past and can authorize them now."
Inman added that this is "why no activity moved forward to pursue
changing the law, to do it in the courts." Whether the president
changes course and decides to work with Congress will depend on
"whether the president walks away from the vice president on this
issue."
But the George W. Bush administration did take soundings in
Congress. And this has been known since December 19, 2005, when
attorney Alberto Gonzales, in an unguarded moment, responded to a
question as to why - if FISA was inadequate - the administration did
not seek new legislation to enable it to conduct such a program
legally. Why the "backdoor approach?" he was asked. Gonzales's
response was a masterpiece of casuistry, but it escaped wide notice:
"This is not a backdoor approach. We believe Congress has
authorized this kind of surveillance. We have had discussions with
Congress in the past - certain members of Congress - as to whether or
not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with this
kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be difficult, if
not impossible."
You do not need a law degree to ask the obvious question: If you
believe you already had congressional authorization, why approach
Congress for authorization? Earlier, at the December 19 press
conference, Gonzales had adduced a twin argument that the
eavesdropping program was legal: (1) Congress's post-9/11
authorization to use force; and (2) the president's "inherent
authority under the Constitution, as commander-in-chief, to engage in
this kind of activity." (During his confirmation hearing before the
Senate on May 18, Gen. Hayden referred only to the
commander-in-chief-Constitution Article II-argument, and it appears
that the administration has now recognized that even though the
Article II argument is quite a stretch, the force-authorization
approach stretches beyond the breaking point.)
On December 19, Gonzales was asked a second time: "If FISA didn't
work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like
this legally." Gonzales read from the same notes, but then added the
disingenuous argument that going to Congress would have risked
revealing the program and killing it - which has become a favorite
administration line. Inman addressed that argument directly on May 8
saying, "I don't happen to think it's valid." And there are few, if
any, top intelligence officials with as much experience in this area
as Inman has.
Add to this that in the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere in which
the draconian Patriot Act sailed through Congress, it seems clear
that the skids would have been greased for any sensible proposal to
amend the already flexible FISA. Indeed, panelist James Risen
quipped, "In October 2001 you could have set up guillotines on the
public streets of America." It is hard to escape the conclusion that
the program (since dubbed "The Terrorist Surveillance Program") was
of such scope and intrusiveness into our civil rights that it had not
a prayer for passage.
I am sorry to have to be the one to tell you all this. The New
York Times has been reporting all week on the Hayden nomination, and
had a sensible editorial on the subject on May 19. But what about
previous NSA director Inman's contribution to the discussion? Did
James Risen forget to file a story? Or did his editors deem it short
of the threshold of All The News That's Fit to Print? Or did a Risen
story get put in the "Hold Until After November" file? Was no one on
the Senate Intelligence Committee aware of Inman's remarks even
though they were available ten days before Hayden's nomination
hearing Thursday? What about the Washington Post, whose ads say, "If
you don't get it, you don't get it." Well, you would not have gotten
it there either.
How did I learn all this? From a story on Steve Clemons's blog,
The Washington Note, which included a link to a transcript of the May
8 New York Public Library event: "Listening In: Eavesdropping and the
National Security Agency." Amy Goodman also mentioned it on Democracy
Now on May 17.
So What About Hayden?
On CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight on May 17, Adm. Inman gave Gen. Hayden
a relatively favorable review, despite Hayden's willingness to obey
what Inman implicitly said were illegal orders, and Hayden's
willingness to take the lead in defending the eavesdropping program.
It is likely that Inman's overly charitable approach can be
attributed to professional courtesy. Inman himself certainly would
not have behaved as Hayden did. A thorough professional, Inman would
not have put on the back burner his oath to defend the Constitution
of the United States and the universal obligation not to obey an
illegal order.
And there is more. The Cheney-esque ethos of contempt for
Congress still rules, facilitated by party partisans in Congress.
House Intelligence Committee Chair Pete Hoekstra, for example, speaks
of "vigorous oversight" of the NSA, but evidence is lacking. Late
last year, for example, the current head of the NSA, Army Lt. Gen.
Keith Alexander, deliberately misled House Intelligence Committee
member Rush Holt (D-NJ) on the eavesdropping program. On December 6,
Rep. Holt called on Alexander and NSA lawyers to discuss protecting
Americans' privacy. They all assured Holt that only with a court
warrant would the NSA eavesdrop on Americans.
Later that month, when the disclosures in the New York Times made
it clear that Gen. Alexander had deliberately misled a member of his
committee of jurisdiction, Hoekstra merely suggested that Holt write
a letter to Alexander to complain. The inescapable message to
Alexander? Fear not: Hoekstra the fox is watching the hen house.
Alexander was accorded the privilege of briefing the Senate
Intelligence Committee on NSA operations the day before the hearing
on Gen. Mike Hayden's nomination to be the next director of the CIA.
There is no sign that any of those Senators were gauche enough to ask
Alexander why the general had lied to one of their House
counterparts. And there is every sign that Roberts's committee will
give its approval to the president having another yes-man as director
of the CIA.
It is interesting, if not surprising, that Senate Intelligence
Committee chairman, party loyalist Pat Roberts, decided to call no
previous NSA director to testify at the Hayden nomination hearing.
Adm. Inman would have been the most experienced and able witness
(especially in view of his intimate knowledge of the history of
FISA). Roberts would have been well aware that for Inman it is one
thing to praise Hayden to Lou Dobbs, and quite another to state under
oath that Hayden had not already disqualified himself for the job. It
is altogether understandable that Roberts would be reluctant to
subject a basically honest officer like Inman to withering
cross-examination by the likes of Sen. Russ Feingold.
Call my thinking "quaint" or "obsolete," but I can find no excuse
for an officer who lets nearness to absolute power, together with
hired-gun lawyers, corrupt and blur his oath to defend the
Constitution and responsibility not to obey illegal orders. When I
was an Army officer, both were drummed into us; and if we reneged on
those promises, we were liable to being drummed out. So I would agree
with the first former NSA director quoted above. Hayden should be
court-martialed, not confirmed. And Alexander, too.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052006J.shtml
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Should Gen. Hayden Be Confirmed or Court-Martialed?	20 May 2006 04:52:26 PM

Hanged.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Should Gen. Hayden Be Confirmed or Court-Martialed?	20 May 2006 05:00:07 PM

In article <1148161946.828239.135030@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

wrote:

Hanged.

sounds fair to me.
.

User: "Craig Chilton -- Get us the hell OUT of Iraq -- NOW!!!"
Title: Re: Should Gen. Hayden Be Confirmed or Court-Martialed?	20 May 2006 05:25:36 PM

On Sat, 20 May 2006 18:00:07 -0400,
James G. Keegan, Jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote: