Reply #7: There are many outraged reader letters in response to Conason. [View All]

[madfloridian]

Here is one of the better ones...

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/05/19/hayden_cia/permalink/08bbae4ecdd4c50ac40c47a67017fa6a.html

"Many of Conason's Arguments are Faulty
I was dismayed by the entire premise of Conason's work: that a candidate nominated by George W. Bush is the best choice to repair damage caused by other Bush appointees. It seems as though even a child would see the flaw in this idea: Like appointing Ed Meese to chair a commission on civil liberties for porn producers.

Evidently though Conason is blind, at least on the subject of General Hayden. His arguments didn't get any better as we read along.

Conason notes right off that Hayden is promulgating the entirely specious Article II argument to give blanket permission for any idea that enters Dubya's pointy little head. Conason knows it's specious - he implies as much with the reference to Nixon. Hayden is saying, in effect, "Any order from the President is a lawful order." Yet the fact that Hayden is arguing this way seems to drift right past Conason, unnoticed.

Conason tries to argue that Hayden isn't responsible for deciding whether or not an order is lawful. That's misleading at best. The duty of any service person - officer or enlisted - is to remain aware of potentially unlawful orders and to refuse to obey a questionable order until its legality has been verified. "Verified," in this case, does not mean "Run past Bush's pet Attorney General." If Hayden doesn't recognize the need to seek an objective legal opinion on these matters, then he is too dangerous for the job."