Joe Conason: Don't punish Hayden for Bush's sins

[madfloridian]

Now that confuses me. I blame him for spying on us for all these years. Why is Conason so praising of Hayden? Surprising. I don't see much Democratic opposition to him either, so maybe our party supports his nomination?

Maybe I am missing something?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/05/19/hayden_cia/index.html?source=newsletter

May 19, 2006 | With the nomination of Gen. Michael V. Hayden to direct the Central Intelligence Agency before the Senate, the question that lingers in the air is whether he should be penalized for the trespasses of the president who chose him. Unless the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee uncover new derogatory information about him or his conduct as director of the National Security Agency, then the general's nomination should be approved as expected next week.

..."Yet while the president certainly deserves to be investigated (or worse) for his regime's apparent misconduct, the Hayden nomination is not the most appropriate forum for that reckoning. The nomination process is meant to determine whether the general is qualified to serve as CIA director, whether he has been truthful in his previous testimony before the Senate and how he intends to rebuild the agency.

Last April, Hayden came before the intelligence committee to be confirmed as deputy director of national intelligence under Director John Negroponte. At the time he testified that the NSA, which he then ran, had pursued its mission "absolutely in compliance with all U.S. law and the Constitution." During his confirmation testimony he elaborated on that answer. Government lawyers had assured him, he said, that his agency's expanded wiretapping program after 9/11 met legal and constitutional standards.

In the same breath, he alluded to "Article II" of the Constitution, which is shorthand for the president's war-making power. In other words, Hayden is shielding the NSA program -- and himself -- behind the same arguments used in the infamous Justice Department "torture memo." If the president says to do it, it isn't illegal, to paraphrase Richard Nixon's version of the same bad idea. What Hayden said is that he believed that the president was giving him a lawful order, and that the lawyers he relied upon told him so.

Was Hayden responsible for determining whether the Bush administration was violating the Constitution and the law? In the first instance, that was the responsibility of the attorneys general, both of whom failed in carrying it out; in the second instance, that responsibility belongs to Congress and the courts, which have done much less so far than they should.

He further says Hayden will treat the Senate with respect, is quite qualified, and Bush might send worse if Hayden is rejected.

I guess I don't understand the profuse praise for a man whose arrogance toward us was on display on TV this week.

[rodeodance]

1. makes Hayden seem like a YES man to me:

..May 19, 2006 | With the nomination of Gen. Michael V. Hayden to direct the Central Intelligence Agency before the Senate, the question that lingers in the air is whether he should be penalized for the trespasses of the president who chose him. Unless the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee uncover new derogatory information about him or his conduct as director of the National Security Agency, then the general's nomination should be approved as expected next week.

[madfloridian]

2. Maybe our Democrats really are supportive of him.

Maybe that's why Dean's statement got very little attention here yesterday. Someone posted it and it had to kicked and rekicked to even get attention.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/05/govenor_dean_on.php

"After yesterday's hearings, it's obvious that Hayden's involvement in the NSA's domestic spying program disqualifies him from heading the CIA. His answers to questions from Congress and from the press have been evasive at best and downright false at worst. The Bush administration's chronic pattern of misleading the American people about the full extent of its domestic spying activities was on full display yesterday, and the American people deserve better.

We can't be fooled by the rhetoric from the Republicans: domestic spying is not a partisan issue. Democrats will do what it takes to keep America safe, and support tracking down al-Qaeda and preventing future attacks, but we want the President to follow the law. Domestic spying is one more Bush-imposed chink in the constitutional armor that shields Americans' fundamental rights from over-reaching by the government.

When the Senators meet to decide on Hayden's confirmation, they must hear the voices of their constituents. We want to deliver the voices of 100,000 Americans who oppose this nomination. Will you add your name?"

http://www.democrats.org/hayden

[elehhhhna]

3. Deaar Joe: Fuc& you. Hayden is a Fascist Tool. Are you, too, Joe?

What? Did he get an anthrax mailing from the BA or something?

[aquart]

4. I'm sure that I don't want Hayden for his own sweet sake.

I truly dislike people who think spying on American citizens without a warrant is A-OK.

[tanyev]

5. Hayden's got something on Conason, too?

Darn phone calls.

[mmonk]

6. People have accepted giving up freedom for the myth of "security".

[madfloridian]

7. There are many outraged reader letters in response to Conason.

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."

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Hayden should be rejected

The evidence points to Hayden's being a willing tool of Bush's domestic surveillence program, for which Hayden makes no apologies. He is therefore as guilty as Bush.

The idea that Hayden should be confirmed because Bush will just nominate somebody worse is ludicrous. Hayden should be rejected and so should any nominee who is as bad or worse or even only slightly better.

[grasswire]

9. remember who Conason married

Didn't he marry Monica Crowley's sister? He's seemed a bit defanged since that took place.