Former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden has long been the face and voice of the growing security state within the United States. While many of his representations have been challenged, he continues (like Dick Cheney) to create his own reality to justify powers viewed as authoritarian and unlawful. Now, with the approaching release of a comprehensive report on the torture program, Hayden is out in the press denying the findings of the report that torture did not result in any meaningful new intelligence and that the CIA tortured people who were already cooperating with conventional (and legal) interrogations. Hayden took to the airways to champion torture by attacking the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Cal.) and said that she was just being “emotional” and should not be involved in such a serious debate.
On “Fox News Sunday,” Hayden cited comments Feinstein made last month that the report would “ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted.” That was just Feinstein being “emotional” Hayden insisted: “That sentence — that motivation for the report — may show deep, emotional feeling on the part of the senator, but I don’t think it leads you to an objective report.”
It was an ironic moment since Feinstein has been widely denounced by civil libertarians for her blind support for the intelligence community, including her campaign against Edward Snowden and her defense of massive surveillance programs targeting the entire population in meta data collection. When she was granting the security agencies their every wish, she was pragmatic and powerful. However, once she allowed an investigation into torture, she became emotional and incompetent. Of course, under Hayden’s approach, the United Nations, various countries, numerous human rights organizations, and former government officials are equally blinded by their emotions in denouncing the torture program — and our failure to prosecute former Bush officials.
It is equally telling that Hayden views the condemnation of torture to be a purely emotional response. Torture is a war crime as well as a domestic crime. It is like saying that a prosecutor is a bit too emotional in denouncing murder. Normal people tend to have a certain emotion over torture. We had some pretty powerful emotions when we tried Japanese officers for water boarding our POWs. Hayden made his career by dismissing questions of illegality as emotional tripe.
Ironically, Hayden is my neighbor down the street from my house. The few houses that separate us are nothing like the “emotional” divide over war crimes. I still strongly oppose the record of Feinstein in the expansion of national security powers in this country. However, having Michael Hayden as a critic on the subject of torture is a good step toward redemption.
Source: Washington Post
“History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.”
— George Santayana
Thanks for putting the quotations marks on, just to clarify. 🙂
The following is a quote from the New Yorker article:
“There are really two issues here. One is the reflexive tendency to disparage or dismiss a woman in politics (or in business, or anywhere) with a remark about her supposed susceptibility to emotion. The other is the way a certain femininity—the wilting kind—is ascribed to those who doubt that torture is good for America.”
Thanks for posting it.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/04/dianne-feinstein-emotions-and-the-cia.html There are really two issues here. One is the reflexive tendency to disparage or dismiss a woman in politics (or in business, or anywhere) with a remark about her supposed susceptibility to emotion. The other is the way a certain femininity—the wilting kind—is ascribed to those who doubt that torture is good for America.
If we’re especially lucky (and the full torture report isn’t leaked first), we’ll get to see the original report, as well as the redacted one.
Jill;
It is not proper to classify those who steal elections as “leaders”.
Unless (of course) you count the fact that we were “led” to victory over an inferior enemy under baked up WMD banter so that our “leader”
could strut his stuff during Thanksgiving with a plastic turkey on a tray.
Symbolic in more ways than one.
Jill, the crucifixion stance used by the interrogators seems so evil. That invokes a real emotional response from those who can imagine it and if those pictures get published, I think the outrage and disgust by most people will be on full display. No wonder it was secret for so long. I wonder how much the CIA will redact before the general public sees it.
Jill says, “Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, even people who have openly admitted to war crimes under US law.”
I not only agree, I would change “even” to “especially”.
Anon, that is one of the most important summaries of what has happened, including that we will see very little of the actual torture report. Still, this makes me emotional: “The next day, McClatchy reported that the investigation includes the horrid details of at least five suspects to die in CIA custody, including “the death of Gul Rahman, an Afghan who was shackled, doused with cold water and left in a cold cell partially clothed until he died of hypothermia”, and “Manadal al Jamadi, who reportedly died after he was hung in a crucifixion-like pose and his head had been covered with a plastic bag.”
As Easter approaches I wonder what it is about my nation that its leaders find crucifixion so vital to their war on terror.
Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, even people who have openly admitted to war crimes under US law. To state the obvious in no way absolves the need for a free and fair trial of any person who has admitted to war crimes.
Under our law, the things that Hayden has done qualify him as a war criminal. To say that is simply the truth. It is also true that before any punishment is given for these crimes, he is entitled to a fair trial in a civilian court of justice. If and only if he is found guilty, may punishment be meted out.
As I said before, a court of law is where Hayden’s statements have relevance. Otherwise, they have no meaning except as propaganda.
“Leak the CIA report: it’s the only way to know the whole truth about torture”
by Trevor Timm
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/05/leak-cia-report-torture-redacted-transparency
Hayden lying is simply a fact.
The emotional fitness of a woman to discuss national security matters is an opinion.
And bfm makes a salient point about looking as issues first over actors being a wise tactic in dealing with pols.
” In my lifetime I have never seen people condemn people as criminals (war criminals specifically) without trial, so fast.”
The clear implication of most statements is that water boarding, stress positions, temperature extremes, slamming people into walls, and other practices are war crimes – despite the rationalizations Yoo and Bybee.
I am confident that most of us, if we are ever placed on a jury, will be able to search our conscience and determine if we are able reach a decision solely on the basis of the evidence against that individual.
Jonathan,
“[A]n island of relative civility and mature discourse.”
So how’s that workin’ out for you again?
Free speech protections as envisioned by the Founders are designed to protect dissent.
There are exceptions legally (and ethically) recognized to that right like defamation and incitement.
So what is it you are shootin’ for again, JT? To value free speech or show that it can be used as a shield to justify bad behavior? To illustrate the failure of absolutism in considering rights as singular and operating in isolation from other rights both individual and in common – an abstract that doesn’t really work when applied to a community in action? To illustrate the value of refined social rules by perpetuating negative example?
Outstanding.
And by way of clarification, I never said I didn’t support this forum. I said I wasn’t going to whitewash your fence on the weekends anymore or play a big roll in the contiguous community based upon a fundamental disagreement about theory and its relation to application. I didn’t say I’d never comment again. By in large, I’ve stayed out of the fray for four months aside from observing. I would still like to believe that by in large we share many common goals in areas like civil liberties, human rights and accountability in government, but maybe not.
Do you know the joke/parable about the bird flying south and the elephant?
A bird flying south for the winter is caught by an unexpected severe cold snap. It falls to the ground, awaiting its icy death. Along comes an elephant who, seeing the dying bird, proceeds to take a dump on it. This at first horrified the bird. It was messing with its beautiful plumage. Then the bird realized it was warm and it was feeling better. It just might survive. So happy by this thought, the bird began to sing against all the Rules of Birds. Birds never sing on the ground. It attracts predators. And it is at this point a cat leaped from the tall grass, pulled the bird out of the dung, and ate it.
The lessons are that not everyone who gives you crap is your enemy and that not everyone who pulls you out of crap is your friend.
Since you “have no problem with people criticizing [you] or [your] disinclination to ban people” then you shouldn’t mind this comment or the observation that some things are a matter of ratios and interrelation to other ideas and ideals. Even in egalitarian society, the aberrant are not allowed to run amok because their rights as an individual somehow trump the rights of the many. Their access to society is limited in myriad ways from injunction to incarceration to limiting their access to participate in very specific ways such as disallowing felons the right to vote.
Or do you really think this is thread so far constitutes civil mature discourse?
Just curious.
Or have you moved on?
That last one was a rhetorical question. The others? Not so much.
Any day that high functionary governmental war criminals are fighting in public over who is lying or who is too emotional or who is the greater criminal or torturer is a great day for the American public and, indeed, all citizens of the world.
Is there any doubt that Hayden, Brennan and Feinstein are all war criminals? Everyday the empire looses a little more control.
@Nick Spinelli “She is trying to regain some credibility and folks are buying it. This woman is a lightweight and always has been.”
I think you may be right. But the observation raises an interesting question. The issues are so diverse, there are essentially no elected officials that I can support completely.
It would seem the only choice is to support politicians for the issues where I agree and oppose them on the issues where I disagree.
For what ever reason, Feinstein is pushing positive steps on war crimes so I support her on those issues. She also supports dangerous programs conducted by NSA so I oppose on those issues.
In today’s complex world, I do not see that there are any politicians that I can support unequivocally. The only choice I see is to voice support issue by issue.
Common.
It’s a commen tactic when attempting to discredit or marginalized a female by saying she is too emotional, ‘hysterical’. Good for Senator Feinstein who s deserving of credit for getting the torture report through. I agree with those who think perhaps she did it because she thinks I will help change the way the way the US interrogates. Credit where credit is due.
How ’bout, “Liar, liar pants on fire” directed @ Hayden, is that mature?
Humor is indeed subjective. To each their own is what my mom would always say.