President Bush just made it official — Air Force General Michael Hayden was just appointed as the new Director of the CIA.
And critics are already lining up, and the chief complaint seems to be that “a military man should not be the head of this civilian agency.”
To which I say, bullshit.
I’m thankful and relieved to see a military man appointed as the Director of the CIA — an agency that was founded by General Bill Donovan, by the way. I make no secret that I hold men who have served in the military in higher regard for their service than I do men who have chosen not to serve. And conversely, I almost always think lesser of any man who has chosen not to serve.
So rather than look at General Hayden’s Military service as a negative, I see it as an overwhelming positive.
____________
President Bush, while making the appointment in the Oval Office, said, “We must have best possible intel to stop terrorists.”
General Hayden has over 20 years of experience in the Intel field. He is as or more qualified than anybody in our country to continue to obtain this vital intel.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
read more | add new comment | source |full article | [IMG delicious] | [IMG digg] | [IMG reddit] | [IMG technorati]
I don’t have an opinion on the appointment but I don’t think criticism regarding his military service has anything to do with the personal virtues gained from or evidenced by serving in the Air Force.
Obviously the issue is the maintenance of civilian control of the national defense.
Beyond that the criticism I’ve heard related to his dopey claim that the Fourth Amendment does not demand a probable cause for ‘searches and seizures’: Hayden responded: “No, actually–the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure…. That’s what it says.” When Landay continued, “But does it not say probable–” Hayden said: “No. The amendment says…unreasonable search and seizure.”
For reference:
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.
Oh well. I guess we must destroy the Constitution to save the Constitution.
And of course, you intentially left this part out when you copied and pasted:
Just to be very clear–and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it’s the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you’ve raised to me–and I’m not a lawyer, and don’t want to become one–what you’ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is “reasonable.” And we believe–I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.
He’s correct; you are not. A warrant is not required for every search. Therefore, neither is probable cause. However, reasonableness is always required. Nice try, asshat.
[Editor's Note --- Preston might be a Liberal, he might be a Democrat. He's probably a Yankee. But he's not an asshat. His viewpoints are just different...often wrong (*grin*), but that's no reason for name calling.]
Welcome back, 2! Elevating the discussion, as always.
After you lower it with you deceptive cut and paste job and erroneous interpretation of the 4th Amendment? Hell, yes!
To speak to your point, 2, yes I copied and pasted. In most circles direct quotes are actually considered valuable.
As for ‘intentionally’ omitting your quote: well, I was refering to the reasons that some people were opposing him- I think my quote illustrates that better than the subsequent ‘clarification’ you offered. My quote was a blunder from someone who claims to know the 4th Amendment well- yours is a point that could be the topic of a long debate among lawyers.
As I mentioned I don’t particularly oppose Hayden myself- at least the guy’s previous job wasn’t Commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association.
That’s pretty funny, and considering some of President Bush’s past appointments, pretty valid (see: Harriet Miers, Supereme Court).
To speak to your point, 2, yes I copied and pasted. In most circles direct quotes are actually considered valuable.
Not when they are taken out of context and/or edited.
As for ‘intentionally’ omitting your quote: well, I was refering to the reasons that some people were opposing him- I think my quote illustrates that better than the subsequent ‘clarification’ you offered. My quote was a blunder from someone who claims to know the 4th Amendment well- yours is a point that could be the topic of a long debate among lawyers.
Spin, spin, spin. You were referring to why some people were opposing him by selectively quoting him and doing the same? Right. Your quote, by the way, was not a blunder but another intentional deception on your part. My point, can be deduced from the language of the amendment itself – no long debate necessary. You’re always trying to pull some sleezy trick and then b.s. your way out of it. It gets old.
[Editor’s Note — Preston might be a Liberal, he might be a Democrat. He’s probably a Yankee. But he’s not an asshat. His viewpoints are just different…often wrong (*grin*), but that’s no reason for name calling.]
It is when he takes cheap shots by being deliberately deceptive.
Lord, 2, is your name Michael Hayden?
If you have a problem with the transcript, take it up with Wikipedia. I didn’t come to this thread looking to ‘take cheap shots’- in fact I had never heard about his quote before doing research today. That said, I don’t know how you can claim that his denial of the existence of the concept of ‘probable cause’ was not a blunder. Yes, he later retracted by saying that it’s not that he doesn’t think the concept exists in the Bill of Rights but that it’s not controlling. I suppose that’s heartening.
I have discovered on this and other blogs that the liberals view their personal “privacy” almost above anything else, even to the point of letting privacy rules overrule the ability of our agencies to monitor terrorists plotting against our own country. Honestly, it baffles me. For those who question me, I ask you this question. If I’madinnerjacket in Iran was about to phone one of his spies in this country to blow up the Sears Tower and if our CIA knew this call was going to take place, would the liberals on this blog support the president’s decision to intercept the call or not … immediately on the spot, no warrants, no court decision, NADA?
Dianne- FISA allows for that. You can get a warrant after-the-fact.
I think the liberals on this blog have made it abundantly clear that we support electronic spying on our enemies. We differ with the President only when he wants to spy on Americans without a warrant.
My question is why would anybody support that?