Many of us have been alarmed by the obvious effort of the Obama staff to avoid any investigation of confirmed war crimes by the Bush Administration in the torture program. Obama and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder have been suggesting that a war crime investigation would be “uncivil” and “looking backwards.” It has not gone over well since torture is a crime under eight treaties and statutes. Now, General Michael V. Hayden claims that Obama secretly promised him that there would be no war crimes investigation or prosecution in a meeting in Chicago.
Hayden’s role in this growing controversy is particularly distressing for civil libertarians. Not only does it confirm signals coming from the Obama camp since the election, but Hayden has been a particularly dark figure in the unlawful surveillance and torture programs, including statements that have been criticized as knowingly misleading or outright false.
Hayden had a closed door meeting with Obama last month in Chicago. He said Obama made it clear that the Bush Administration and CIA staff have nothing to worry about. “He’s looking forward,” Hayden said, “and that’s very appropriate.” If true, it would be confirmation of a bait-and-switch by the democrats. For years, the Democrats insisted that they could not act on torture until they controlled Congress. Once they were given both houses of Congress, Democrats insisted that they could not do anything without control of the White House. When they won the White House, the Democrats insisted that there was not enough time before Inauguration. Now, they are insisting that they must “look to the future: and notably not to the war crimes in the immediate past.
Democrats believe that they have nothing to gain personally and politically from prosecuting war crimes. They have been trying to sell people on yet another meaningless commission as a substitute for prosecution.
Not surprisingly, Obama aides are denying the story, here.
Of course, there is a very easy way to dispel any such rumors. Obama simply needs to say that any war crimes will be investigated and, if evidence if found of such crimes, prosecuted. That is what it means when Obama and Holder repeatedly say “no one is above the law.” The fact that they have struggled to simply commit themselves to enforce the law is highly worrisome and only serves to confirm the Hayden story.
For the full story, click here.
MORONS! the lot of you! Bush won’t pardon Cheney, etc and/or “himself” because HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING WRONG! You friggin two bit losers are out there in Maddow/Olbermann BANANALAND with the rest of the 1 percenters in America.
Here is a tip: GET JOBS.
Perhaps this will clarify. The Constitution protects AGAINST unreasonable searches and seizures. The way to challenge a search
and/or seizure is to require the government to show probable cause.
For ‘pedestrians’, generally speaking, a ‘stop’ is considered a ‘search’ and an ‘arrest’, a ‘seizure’.
It is true that not everything that is found, for instance, in the course of a normal traffic stop requires a warrant to prosecute, but that is not the issue here. Our government was spying on it’s own citizens, presumably, without the benefit of any probable cause.
“…In October 2007, Rowe and the Attorneys General of Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey, along with a Commissioner of the Missouri Public Service Commission, submitted a joint statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging the Committee to reject any amendment to FISA that would interfere with the states’ ability to investigate whether telephone companies unlawfully disclosed their customers’ records…”
maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=AGOffice_
Press&id=60134&v=article
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
Fourth Amendment – Search and Seizure
Amendment Text | Annotations
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.
FFLEO,
Gen. Hayden has his own reading of the Constitution and has his own reading of what is best for the country. It is fortunate for us that he is leaving office. It is unfortunate for us that he has been spying on us for far too many years. You would think that the head of the CIA would be aware of the proper standard for the 4th Amendment. Maybe he has been talking to John Yoo too much.
mespo727272 1, January 18, 2009 at 8:38 am
Let’s see now, chief of CIA charged with keeping the Nation’s secrets, reveals secret conversation with incoming President to protect him and his minions from facing the music on admitted war crimes. BTW CIA chief not exactly the best at recalling things (i.e. see 4th Amendment fiasco supra). Incoming President denies the claim. Oh who to believe?
———————
As an aside, soon-to-be-former CIA chief “certainly would have considered [staying] if asked,” …
“Duh.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia16-2009jan16, 0, 7716070.story
In fairness to the 4-star General.
‘Unwarranted Criticism’
General Hayden’s reading of the Fourth Amendment is correct, and his critics are mistaken.
By Adam White
article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODgxN2VkMzA3MTFjNWFmNzZjNzZiODVlYzI3YTdiZTc=
Incredible; a 4-Star General who heads the CIA does not understand the legal standard of probable cause, especially given his statement:
“Just to be very clear, okay—and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees at the National Security Agency is familiar with, it’s the fourth, alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment.”
Um, General, I do not “believe” you. You have no means to wiggle out of your ignorance. A minimally informed citizen who took grade school or high school civics–no law degree required–should understand the concept of probable cause.
Thanks for the info Bobfrog.
NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I
Section 12
[Security against unreasonable searches, seizures and interceptions]
§12. 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.
The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/info/constitution.htm
So, are we talking about the same General Michael V. Hayden that wouldn’t know the the document he’s sworn to defend, i.e. the Constitution, even if he were pissing on it?
Who could ever forget this ditty from January of 2006?
(in media res…)
JONATHAN LANDAY: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I’d like to stay on the same issue. And that has to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I’m no lawyer, but 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.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That’s what it says.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable—
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: No.
JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard—
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
JONATHAN LANDAY: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, “We reasonably believe.” And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say “We reasonably believe.” You have to go to the FISA court or the Attorney General has to go to the FISA court and say, “We have probable cause.” And so what many people believe, and I would like you to respond to this, is that what you have actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of “reasonably believe” in place of “probable cause,” because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief. You have to show a probable cause. Can you respond to that, please?
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Sure. I didn’t craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order, alright? The Attorney General has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear, okay—and believe me, if there’s any amendment to the Constitution that employees at the National Security Agency is familiar with, it’s the fourth, alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. So, what you’ve raised to me—and I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to become one—but 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’re lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/24/former_nsa_head_gen_hayden_grilled
Former Fed and LindyLou,
FFLEO you hit the nail on the head when you correctly state that without the rule of law we wouldn’t be able to debate the metaphysical issues as LindyLou mentioned.
Kirkland,
Rafflaw spoke for my thoughts and already gave you the lawyerly version, but I’m going to answer you anyway.
It’s downright idiotic to assume because we’re exchanging ideas here that we don’t also try to pressure our lawmakers to do the right thing. Personally, I’d love to see a Hallmark card with Maxine banging a pot and demanding to be listened to, but in reality the points that are made here on this blog are much more persuasive, especially when trying to convince our US senators and representatives. I treasure what I learn here on this blog.
The comparison of abortion to upholding the law is pure crap. Abortion arguments depend on metaphysics which can’t be proven. However, US law is written down for all to see including laws on torture, presidential power, congressional duties, and upholding the US Constitution –and who might be above that set of laws.
Say what Kirkland; …“same excluding of other issues that more directly effect (sic) people’s lives.”
The rules of law and honoring the U.S. Constitution both have paramount direct consequences affecting people’s lives by preserving the foundations of democracy that provided the lawful effects which allow people to debate and affect “this issue” and abortion.
Krkland,
I don’t know who you have been talking to, but almost everyone I know wants an investigation of some sort. Whether it be on FISA wiretaps, Torture, and a myriad of other possible crimes. I take great exception to your comparison of the left on this issue and the right on the abortion issue. The issue of torture does not fall under right or left wing headings. Torture is a crime in our country and must be handled as such and at least in the Catholic faith that I grew up in, torture would be a mortal sin. Your posting assumes that those of us on this site who are protesting about the torture are not “working” to get it solved. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Remember that Obama ran under the banner of stopping torture by the US and says now that he will end torture. The next step of prosecuting those that ordered it is the step we are working on. And when it comes to honoring our laws and international law, how does that “exclude other issues that more directly effect people’s lives”? Are you suggesting that working to make sure criminals are brought to justice doesn’t effect people’s lives directly? Who do you think suffers when we, as a country, torture? Other citizens and soldiers suffer when our enemies torture them in response. These investigations can be done while dealing with the economic issues of the day. A small part of the persuading that you suggest needs to be done is being done right here.
If you want investigations and/or prosecutions then get to work!
I’m tired of reading these daily laments that the outgoing administration is not going to be held accountable.It’s time to stop lamenting and start persuading.
Stop typing your indignation and start getting out there and persuade people that this must happen. Otherwise, there is no political cover for this to happen.
Has polling been done on this issue? I know most people I talk to, on both sides of the political aisle, do not want to see this.
This issue has become on the Left, what the abortion issue is on the Right. Same moralizing, same absolutism, same excluding of other issues that more directly effect people’s lives.
I have to agree with raff. Coming from Hayden it smells like flack. This does not negate the fact that failure to prosecute will result in critical domestic trouble.
President Obama will be challenged constantly by the Washington game of leaking information that is self-serving to the leaker and to those they represent. These nuggets of information and/or mis-information represent the story lines of an MSM that no longer has a clue as to how to properly do their journalistic jobs and/or has sold out long ago. The task for us who are not insiders is to search out our own sources of no-MSM polluted commentators, John Turley, Glenn Greenwald and Digby come to mind, and form our own opinions. However, before we get too far ahead of ourselves in a “reading the tea leaves” fashion, we should wait until the inauguration and the subsequent actions to decide if our new President will properly address this critical issue. I’m hopeful he will, but I am also willing to work hard in my small way to ensure that justice is done, indictments/convictions/sentencing occurs and the U.S. has firmly established the unacceptability of this Executive Branch behavior.
Could it be that Obama is trying to dupe Bush into not pardoning himself and his minions, so that he will be able to prosecute them later, by issuing statements intended to mislead the criminal president into believing his administration’s war crimes won’t be prosecuted?
Would the video statements fall under the Hearsay Rule in any future court proceedings and subject to all of the exemptions and exceptions that ‘might’ exclude the videos as ‘evidence’?
Lunatic and MSNBCer,
My hat goes off to the both(or one?)of you. I couldn’t withhold my laughter at the cleverness of your posts. The satiric skill shown definitely rates a 10. Where did you find the talent to seemingly portray yourself(/selves?) as disgruntled losing, neo cons, dwelling in the depth of depression over their self inflicted losses, by tossing the usual non sequitor invective at all with whom they disagree. How adroit of you to makes those points glow with the same kind of willful ignorance that those faux conservatives use to make theirs. The comment about George W. Bush being trustworthy caused a pain in my chest from the contractions of laughing so hard. You two(or one as the case may be)should look for work writing for Stephen Colbert. We need more satirists like you who know how to accurately display those stupid souls among us who really think that they represent conservative thought. Bravo!
I did not know about the 1994 Convention Against Torture under the conservative patron saint Ronald Reagan. What is the significance of it being signed but not ratified by the US of A? Was it ever ratified?
Former Fed,
I am not talking about perjury. Mespoo and Bob,Esq. can correct me,but the video should be able to be used as evidence that they committed the crimes of ordering torture, especially if they try to deny it later on. Plus, there are plenty of other witnesses to the orders given to corroborate. Maybe George and Dick actually put the orders in writing to satisfy the CIA demands for legal cover. I did notice my misspelling of Hayden’s in my earlier posting. I guess I am guilty of poor spelling.