The Blue State

CIA Director declared Iraq chaos "irreversible" last year

Michael Hayden warned President Bush on November 13, 2006 that the instability in Iraq could not be magically altered:

Hayden said "the inability of the government to govern seemsirreversible," adding that he could not "point to any milestone orcheckpoint where we can turn this thing around," according to writtenrecords of his briefing and the recollections of six participants.

"Thegovernment is unable to govern," Hayden concluded. "We have spent a lotof energy and treasure creating a government that is balanced, and itcannot function."

That just about says it right there.  To this day, Hayden remains as Bush's CIA Director.

Ironically, the meeting last year between Hayden and Bush happened just hours after Bush told the Iraq Study Group, "A constitutional order is emerging."

Maybe Bush should have met with the CIA Director before telling what he told to the Iraq Study Group.  Even then, the chances are that Bush would not have shared what Hayden told him.

Making it to a floor vote, Hayden is not qualified for CIA post

Bush's CIA Director nominee Michael Hayden cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee by a 12 to 3 vote.  The confirmation process now heads to the Senate floor, where he will likely be approved, making him the next head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

As expected, before clearing him, the Intelligence Committee steered clear of asking him about a heated exchange that he had with a reporter at the National Press Club on January 23rd of this year regarding the 4th Amendment.  During the exchange, Hayden did not seem to understand that the 4th Amendment says the government needs "probable cause" before conducting searches:

QUESTION: "...I'm no lawyer, but myunderstanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitutionspecifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a searchthat does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches andseizures. Do you use -- "

GEN. HAYDEN: "No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure."

QUESTION: "But the --"

GEN. HAYDEN: "That's what it says."

QUESTION: "But the measure is probable cause, I believe."

GEN. HAYDEN: "The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."

QUESTION: "But does it not say probable --"

GEN. HAYDEN: "No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure."

Here is what the 4th Amendment really says:

"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."

So we are about to confirm a man to a post that deals daily with the area of searches and seizures even though he has a warped view of that particular law.  Senators need to give this guy a 'nay' vote.

Bush and Negroponte are looking forward to working with their 'yes sir' CIA head

A few days ago I wrote an editorial about the problem of having a National Intelligence Director that is almost as powerful as the President himself.  I elaborated on the fact that what Bush and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte both want is a 'yes sir' kind of guy heading the CIA.  In conservative columnist Robert Novak's opinion piece this week, the former co-host of CNN's extinct program Crossfire says that Michael Hayden is just that kind of guy:

Congressional discontent with Gen. Hayden to head the CIA stemspartly from unhappiness by House members over the way their old comradewas booted out. But beyond that are historical reasons for unhappinesswith an Air Force general in charge at Langley. Career officers havenot fared well as CIA directors, hitting a low point with Vice Adm.William Raborn Jr. in 1965-66.

An expert in communicationsintelligence as director of the National Security Agency, Hayden doesnot seem suited to correct the CIA's deficiencies in humanintelligence. He is expected to salute and follow orders asNegroponte's deputy and a military man. With CIA careerist Stephen R.Kappes returning as deputy CIA director, the days of shaking up theagency seem ended.

If Hayden is confirmed -- which he probably will since a lot of his opposition is coming from the House, not the Senate where he will be confirmed -- then the ball is still in the air whether there will remain a lot of dissension within the CIA.  My guess is that many members of the CIA have every reason to go against Hayden between now and the end of Bush's second term.  Hayden would not be working for the best interests of the agency, but instead the best interests of John Negroponte.

Likely successor to Porter Goss has dangerous view of Fourth Amendment

Michael Hayden, who will likely take over the top job at the CIA, replacing outgoing director Porter Goss, is a polarizing figure when it comes to the President's warrantless wiretap program.  The New York Times hinted on Saturday morning that the Hayden confirmation hearings could be quite confrontational:

As N.S.A.director until last year, General Hayden oversaw the program tointercept international phone calls and e-mail messages of Americansand others in the United States believed to have links to Al Qaeda .

GeneralHayden, 61, has been the program's most public defender, repeatedlyasserting that it is legal and constitutional even though theeavesdropping is done without warrants from a special court set up in1978 to authorize such surveillance.

Civil libertarians should have every reason to be worried.  Hayden has a very radical interpretation of the fourth amendment.  He believes that authorities do not need probable cause before conducting a search.  Read this exchange that Hayden had with a Knight Ridder reporter at the National Press Club in January of this year regarding the 4th Amendment:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay onthe same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you useto target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is thatthe Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must haveprobable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate anAmerican's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

What Hayden said about "probable cause" not being in the 4th Amendment is completely false.  The 4th Amendment does indeed say that authorities do need probable cause before conducting searches.  Read it here:

"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."

All of us ought to fully expect that our elected Senators will show some backbone during the confirmation hearings and ask Mr. Hayden to correct his own scholar-less understanding about our constitution.  Until he truly understands the 4th Amendment, he should not be confirmed.