Leahy's lame excuse for voting yes on Hayden

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
In Support Of The Confirmation
Of Gen. Michael V. Hayden
To Be Director Of The Central Intelligence Agency
May 26, 2006

In several crucial respects, the CIA today is in disarray, and fixing our premier intelligence agency must be a top priority. The CIA must become as effective as we need it to be in combating terrorism and in serving all of our national security interests. The keys to a strong and competent CIA are the independence and proficiency of its leadership.

I had a lengthy private discussion with General Hayden in deciding how I would vote on his confirmation. Our discussion confirmed the confidence that I have long had in General Hayden’s professionalism and competence. I remain outraged about the controversial domestic surveillance initiatives that the NSA has overseen at the White House’s direction, but the fact remains that President Bush and Vice President Cheney – not General Hayden -- were the “deciders” in ordering this surveillance of Americans, with then-White House Counsel Gonzales acting in his capacity to validate a program that was structured and operated outside the checks and balances of existing law.

more crap:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200605/052606a.html

that justify whatever fucking traitorous thing somebody in guv'ment, of whichever party, wants to do for his/her own "private" reasons.

"Private conversations" should be code words for "F*cking the American people over for my own personal gain. But, just trust me... you'll like the deal."

I used to like and respect Leahy so much. But this "just trust me... I know more than you do" sh*t has got to stop!

TC

Does that not sound serious enough?

and he will never do anything to protect us as Vermonters or Americans. He is a liar, an opportunist, and doesn't deserve to represent us. I hold him personally responsible for all the wiretapping and spying on americans.

I don't know a heck of a lot about him, but after his strong performance that day I'm not too quick to throw him under the bus.

He also was the guy who earned a fuck-you out of Cheney, which is a badge of distinction.

He clearly is an old-school guy who practices the old-school art of Senate compromise, and in these days of Republican hegemony it's awfully hard to know how to conduct oneself:

* Play the game to get the occasional small victory
* Make everything a moral victory and get nowhere, assuming you can get nowhere with these guys in the majority anyway

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

doing about this?

...President Bush and Vice President Cheney – not General Hayden -- were the “deciders” in ordering this surveillance of Americans...

If it wasn't Hayden's doing, let's go after the "deciders" who ordered this illegal activity.

Also, what happened to refusing to obey an illegal order?

impeach. he will confirm any Nazi that bush sends for confirmation.

Is that officials in our government, and officers and enlisted personnel in our military, are under obligation to disobey orders to break the law....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809<890>.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Well put.

Bake

hearings..

I said it was troubling to me that Hayden did not answer a single one of Feinstein or Weyden's questions. The CSPAN guy actually said, "isn't it comforting they are meeting behind closed doors for private conversations"

I just said, 'heck no, and should any of us be OK with the further militarization of our US government"

but to have the CSPAN guy try to comfort me down from my panic limb (when my voice was shaking) kinda made me think they've gotten PBS and also CSPAN as the bootlicking media organizational control is now fully complete....

during that lengthy private discussion Hayden reminded Leahy that he was the recipient of some potentially lethal anthrax-tainted mail that could only have come from a US government source. I see no other reason besides a direct threat that Leahy would be voting to confirm this goon.

together post haste, Leahy was the guy full of sound and fury when it came to Americans being spied on. It does make me wonder why he's veered so far off course from his original stance which actually supported his constituents.

be a Yes man to them.

dems will not get in power because of the voting machines.

hayden was put there to continue and expeand the assault on our personal liberties.

leahy is a co-conspirator

I heard Joe Conason of Salon and the Nation being interviewed on Air America. He recommended approving Hayden. He said Hayden is one of the few people who are intelligent enough, experienced enough and professional enough to stand up to the neocons who try to manipulate intelligence. H

e said that Hayden's background as an active duty career military man would actually be a plus in this warped world because he is not a political hack like all the rest of Bush's appointments.

indeed.

the 4th Amendment. He is going to nueter the CIA and purge any non RW bootclickers. The CIA was scapegoated regarding the WMDs and most of the top tier of the Company have been purged. Most Dems have thrown in the towel and have no fight left in them. Maybe the NSA has secret files on members of Congress? From now on the CIA will bow to the Bush Regime and Negroponte will be the actual Boss.

Hayden put his career ahead of the Constitution and the country. Hayden is an embarrassment to the uniform he wears.

Amendment IV

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv

all screaming that we didn't want porter goss in and were told not to worry when Kerry got in he would fire his ass.

Hayden didn't "decide" to order illegal surveillance, he just carried out his orders. I like guys who follow orders instead of their consciences, and so I voted to confirm Hayden.

They aren't supposed to only follow the ones they like. The only orders they're allowed to refuse are illegal orders. And if the lawyers within NSA and the JD told him the program was legal, he really had no basis not to implement it. He's not a Constitutional scholar and shouldn't be expected to act like one.

Oh sure, he could have resigned. Maybe he should have -- it's easy to say when it's not your ass on the line. But you really don't want a military where the officers resign every time they're told to do something they don't approve of. The military couldn't function that way. Believe me, it would have been a disaster when Clinton was president.

I agree with Conason. Hayden is more competent than what I would have expected from any Bush appointment, and more likely to give valid intelligence and not just what he thinks Bush wants to hear. I also think he's FAR less likely to continue any purge of CIA professionals who don't toe the political line.

But I also agree with what Wes Clark said, that Hayden should take off the uniform and retire before he accepts the office. He's no longer in a position where he should play the "good soldier" to whatever the commander-in-chief wants.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But I'm trying to put myself in the position of the NSA director, advised by my own lawyers (or so Hayden claims) that it is not illegal. What legal justification do I have to refuse the order? It's not a matter of "I didn't know." It's a matter of "I've been advised by the experts" (and NSA lawyers do specialize in just this sort of law).

And yes, military officers are still taught not to follow illegal orders. Or at least they were until January 2001. Certainly Hayden was taught. I just don't think it's as easy as you do.

Will Hayden "stand up to Bush and Cheney now?" Nobody knows that. Do you think there is anybody that Bush was likely to appoint that you would believe he or she would? I think Hayden is probably as good as we could reasonably expect, and odds are better than most. We very easily could have gotten another Porter Goss (political hack). Or even a Michael Brown (cronie with no experience in the field).

We have to keep our eye on the prize. BushCo is ultimately responsible for all the abuses within the intelligence community. We need to elect a Democratic Congress to keep him in check, to investigate his wrong-doing, and when the time comes, to impeach him.

Both of them voted for Hayden, apparently totally unconcerned about the vast NSA spying on law abiding Americans, or about Hayden's wastefulness at NSA when he spent $2 billion on the now-defunct Trailblazer program.

The smart Democratic Senators voted against Hayden, including Hillary of all people!