Time's Gibbs uncritically reported that Hayden was "credited with so effectively defending" warrantless domestic surveillance
SUMMARY: In a profile of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, President Bush's nominee for director of the CIA, Time magazine senior editor Nancy Gibbs wrote that Hayden "was credited with so effectively defending the National Security Agency's no-warrant wiretapping program after it was exposed in December that he helped turn a simmering scandal into a political win for the Administration." However, Gibbs's reporting omitted a key point: In defending the surveillance program, Hayden made statements that were mutually inconsistent and that contradicted those of other administration officials.
In a profile of Gen. Michael V. Hayden, President Bush's nominee for director of the CIA, for the May 22 edition of Time magazine, senior editor Nancy Gibbs wrote that Hayden "was credited with so effectively defending the National Security Agency's no-warrant wiretapping program after it was exposed in December that he helped turn a simmering scandal into a political win for the Administration." However, Gibbs's reporting on Hayden's defense of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program omitted a key point: In defending the program, Hayden made statements that were mutually inconsistent and that contradicted those of other administration officials. Indeed, the media's failure to note Hayden's contradictory statements may have contributed to a perception -- advanced by Gibbs -- that Hayden was a highly effective defender of the program.
In her profile of Hayden, Gibbs wrote:
"He speaks in lucid, well-constructed sentences," observes former Senator Bob Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee until 2003. "And then he pauses as if to give the listener a chance to assimilate what he has just said." It is clear when Hayden goes to Capitol Hill that he has studied his audience carefully. "He's a great PowerPoint briefer, and he speaks at their level," says a congressional intelligence staffer who has seen the general in action with lawmakers. "He has that wonderful quality of being quite likable and unpretentious. And he would work those members assiduously." In fact, he was credited with so effectively defending the National Security Agency's no-warrant wiretapping program after it was exposed in December that he helped turn a simmering scandal into a political win for the Administration -- to a degree that President George W. Bush might have hoped for another assist when he nominated Hayden to replace Porter Goss as CIA director. "In personal appearance, [Hayden] kind of invites you to underestimate him," says a former national-security official who knows him. "Do not underestimate this guy."
In a January 23 speech, Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence, explained that the warrantless domestic surveillance program operated under a "reasonable basis" standard of proof, which he said was "a bit softer" than the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) "probable cause" requirement for a warrant to conduct domestic electronic surveillance. According to Hayden, the program used this allegedly lower standard of proof to facilitate intelligence collection:
HAYDEN: You know, the 9-11 Commission criticized our ability to link things happening in the United States with things that were happening elsewhere. In that light, there are no communications more important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with Al Qaeda with one end in the United States. The president's authorization allows us to track this kind of call more comprehensively and more efficiently. The trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant, but the intrusion into privacy is also limited: only international calls and only those we have a reasonable basis to believe involve Al Qaeda or one of its affiliates.
However, as Media Matters for America noted, Hayden had testified in October 2002 before a joint congressional committee that a "person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA Act" and therefore "would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person." When asked by then-Rep. Goss (R-FL) whether we could "apply all our technologies and all our capabilities" against a suspected terrorist located in the United States, Hayden replied that he "would have no authorities" to do so. As the weblog Think Progress noted, the NSA's domestic eavesdropping program was active in October 2002. Therefore, at the same time he was telling Congress that the administration recognized FISA's restrictions on surveillance of people in the U.S. legally, Hayden was "pursuing U.S. persons at the direction of the President outside of the FISA statute."
Media Matters also noted that Hayden's claim regarding the program's operating standard was inconsistent with the Bush administration's. In a January 26 Washington Post article, Department of Justice (DOJ) spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asserted that the standard used by the NSA was no different from that required under FISA. Scolinos explained that the operative standard for NSA surveillance is "reasonable basis," which she said was "essentially the same" standard as FISA's requirement for "probable cause."
In subsequent comments, Hayden contradicted his own claim that the warrantless surveillance program's "reasonable basis" standard of proof was lower than FISA's "probable cause standard." On the February 5 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Hayden claimed that in order to undertake domestic surveillance without a warrant, the NSA must have evidence in the same "probable cause range" that FISA requires to obtain a warrant.















from above: " Indeed, the media's failure to note Hayden's contradictory statements may have contributed to a perception -- advanced by Gibbs -- that Hayden was a highly effective defender of the program. "
Hayden is effective in the Webster's Edition of the Definations of Bush. He's effective because, they claim, his delivery is so believable. Frankly, he looks like a character straight out of "Dr. Stranglove".
oops. I clearly need to consult one. a dictionary that is. however, this new edition by Webster's would make an excellent prop in a remaking of "Dr. Stranglove"
Hekuvajob.
Hayden didn't seem to know or care (from the Jan 23 Press Club meeting)...
Landay: ...my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American'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 --
Hayden continues this same line of argument while also throwing in this caveat...
I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one
Given the context, I'm not exactly sure what he was thinking. I doubt he was suggesting that his view, as a non-lawyer, wasn't reliable. More probable is that he was just saying "I'm not going to argue Constitutional law," but then went on to say he knew he was right.
So, Hayden was clueless regarding a Constitutional point central to the NSA program debate...yet, he gave a great defense!! Ya...right. I'm guessing Gen. Hayden probably received a re-education on the wording of the 4th Amendment, thus his subsequent "probable cause range" claim.
By WHOM? It may well be true that Hayden's incoherent, contradictory, and IGNORANT OF THE CONSTITUTION defenses of this program were "credited" by the same people who said Libby had nothing to do with the Plame outing, and that Saddam had vast stores of WMD.
The true hero of the withheld outrage over these domestic spying programs is the withheld INFORMATION. Since all this stuff is still super-secret, the defenders of the programs can Waltz and Fox-Trot and change the subject, without fear of being contradicted by the actual facts -- because the FACTS are still being withheld by the Administration.
Once some sort of disclosure is forced -- even to an oversight session of Congress in secret session -- the game is over. This Administration's only hope of avoiding impeachment and jail is to keep all their actions veiled under a claim of "National Security".
Some of us older folks remember that this worked for Nixon, for a short while.