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
“All over the map”? No, she isn’t.
“Stick to the point. Was she too emotional? That is a yes or no question.”
Here’s a little reading for you:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
Directly on topic: It’s about time Feinstein showed some emotion about the CIA and its shenanigans. She’s been complicit for much too long. For Hayden to try to dismiss by calling her emotional is typical misogynistic claptrap.
On the bigger picture of the topic: Many are saying that torture is against our values. Maybe. But before passing judgement, consider that our government, that which the people “elected”, endorsed slavery and human trafficking; gave small pox infested blankets to Natives; kidnapped Native children in an attempt to destroy their cultures; took land from Natives by any means necessary, including massacres; invaded hundreds of countries, either without provocation or by provoking them into war-like acts, over many decades for their resources for U.S. corporate interests. These types of bad acts continue. Torture and warrantless surveillance are just two tools in the tool box.
bettykath – you are all over the map there in your response and it would take several post to respond to your claims.
1, It is not misogynistic to call a woman emotional when men are called the same thing. It just becomes a descriptor. The question is, was she too emotional to make a rational decision? I know that in my own case, as a male, I have been so emotional that I was incapable of making a rational decision in that particular area.
2. Stick to the point. Was she too emotional? That is a yes or no question.
Thanks, swarthmoremom.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-emotional-dianne-feinstein-cia-20140407,0,3852486.story#axzz2yJItJwJU “The reality is that Feinstein is many things. To cite the things that occasionally either impress or drive people crazy: persistent to the point of irascibility, stubborn as the day is long, as imperial as any member of the vaunted Senate.”
“But emotional is not what comes to mind “
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/emotional-boehner-retains-speaker-s-gavel-20130103
Leak the full report, if necessary. Just do it.
The emotional double standard applied to Sen. Feinstein
by Ruth Marcus, Tuesday, April 8,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-the-emotional-double-standard-women-like-sen-feinstein-face/2014/04/07/094906b8-bea0-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html
“Feinstein had said that releasing the committee’s report on the CIA would “ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted.”
Uh oh. Apparently being worked up over a little torture gets you kicked out of the Big Boys clubhouse.
“That sentence, that motivation for the report, may show deep, emotional feeling on the part of the senator,” Hayden snarked. “But I don’t think it leads you to an objective report.”
I don’t employ the term “sexist” lightly. To interpret this comment in the light most favorable to Hayden, he was citing a column by my colleague David Ignatius describing Feinstein’s desire for a report “so tough” it would prevent any recurrence. Interestingly, Ignatius used the adjectives “determined,” “implacable” and, more critically, “obdurate” to describe the senator. Those are accurate, and they come without gender baggage.”
Feinstein has built her career on emotion. As someone pointed out, she has said HUNDREDS of times the horror of seeing Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk dead. She has milked that for all it’s worth to the 10th power. She never should have left local SF politics. The Peter Principle @ work.
Okay — that was an accidental “winker”. God, how I hate those things.
Bigfatmike has it right. All good points, no pun intended.
“I have always considered her a sort of Lady Macbeth character perfectly capable of shoving a shiv under your ribs when your back is turned.” -bfm
😉
Hayden has resorted to questioning Feinstein’s emotion because he has no compelling arguments to make.
Essentially Hayden is making the little boy’s argument: Feinstein is a girl, girls have cooties, therefore don’t pay any attention to Feinstein.
Hayden’s remarks ought to be laughable. But the issues are serious and require our best attention.
I consider it completely irrelevant to the discussion, but when it comes to the emotion of Ms Feinstein, I have always considered her a sort of Lady Macbeth character perfectly capable of shoving a shiv under your ribs when your back is turned.
But that is just me and not relevant to the important issues of torture, war crimes and our war of aggression.
General Jack D. Ripper: Were you ever a prisoner of war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Well… yes I was, matter of fact, Jack. I was.
General Jack D. Ripper: Did they torture you?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, yes they did. I was tortured by the Japanese. Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story.
General Jack D. Ripper: Well, what happened?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Oh, well, I don’t know, Jack, difficult to think of under these conditions; but, well… what happened was they got me on the old Rangoon-Ichinawa railway. I was laying train lines for the bloody Japanese puff-puff’s.
General Jack D. Ripper: No, I mean when they tortured you. Did you talk?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Ah, oh, no… well, I don’t think they wanted me to talk really. I don’t think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.
seamus – you are aware that film is fiction? And that is just a distraction to the discussion. Let’s get back on point.
A. Was Feinstein emotional?
B. Was Feinstein too emotional?
That should be the discussion here. Everything else is a side show.
” Let’s get back on point.
A. Was Feinstein emotional?
B. Was Feinstein too emotional?”
Regardless of her emotional state, It seems to me the vital point is: are the issues she raises well supported and well taken?
Why don’t we let the report tell us the answer to that question? Let the report stand on its own merits.
Obviously, mention of her emotional state is a sexist distraction intended to avoid serious discussion of war crimes and prosecution of the architects of those criminal policies.
Her emotional state is not a sexist distraction because the same comment has been made about a male politician.
1. Was she emotional. Let’s all admit it here, we all, regardless of our sex, get emotional over some things.
2. If she was emotional, was she too emotional?
“2. If she was emotional, was she too emotional?”
The vital question is whether her position is substantiated by fact and law.
The architects of torture policies desperately want to avoid discussions of fact and law because the Haydens, Cheneys, Yoos, and Bibee’s of that era know where the facts lead.
.
Paul Schulte;
[R]acketeering [I]nfluenced [C]orrupt [O]rganizations Act of 1970 was created by Congress to permit ordinary citizens to be empowered as Private Attorney Generals to fill in Prosecutorial GAPS.
In other words – if the FIX is IN – and no one else wishes to prosecute Capone then you can become Eliot Ness (and Congress grants treble damages to motivate you to do so).
Paul Schulte;
ALSO
There’s Petters Ponzi – Rothstein FL fraud – Frank Vennes – Palm Beach Links (Prevost & Harrold) – Madoff – Stanford – Marc Dreier – Larry (Reservitz) Reynolds – Okun 1031 Tax Group. NY Times March 2013 “Rigging IPO Game”
and WSJ 2004 “eToys investors find conflict at law firm”
They all have a common element that is enjoying nolle prosequi
Paul Schulte;
Our esteemed Prof has declined to discuss my case;
but you can Google “Romney sued for RICO” to see much.
(plus Romney Slapped with Racketeering was independent research)
Then there’s Taibbi “Greed & Debt” (I’m the source)
Well, Laser, I wish you luck.
Laser – did not know that you sued Mitt Romney. On what evidence for racketeering? If it was successful, I have a couple of politicians I would like to use it on.
ON THE SUBJECT OF BANNING, disdain etc.
As some of you know, I’ve sued Mitt Romney for Racketeering. Prior to that I’ve been battling him and his cohorts for more than a decade. Resultantly, I’ve been trolled upon by MittTwit fans and Rove paid hacks. My taking the stuff of naysayers – Personal – resulted in my being banned from the orange realm.
I’ve learned that the root solves the problem.
Of the ignorant – one need simply ignore.
It is the best medicine for myself;
and the hardest pill for the stalwarts to swallow.
That being said (along with the {less than totally candid} remark by the Professor that “I [the Professor] have not deleted comments that simply criticize me or the policies on this blog”) – there’s some need of reminding a party that “WE” (your comment parties and followers) are the ones who helped make this realm to be the esteemed spectrum of discussion it has become.
There are posters here, who venture to the other blog you spoke of Professor – that are qualified “board”/”senior” members of your realm. There’s also loyalists who remain steadfast. They can serve as a jury on these issues.
It would be more prudent to have a process of adjudication;
and several levels of discipline (for a 1st Amendment Blog).
The orange realm has resorted to begging for support; because their haughtier has become the problem. Turning a good thing into not so good!
I’m just sayin……….
swathmoremom;
I condemn the actions that speak louder than words.
And I’m a cynical skeptic of “feign” to be good;
because an even worse person made remarks thereof.
Feinstein’s hubby made big money on RE deals that are surreptitious;
and the dropping Public Corruption Task Force issue was inexplicable!
Hayden and Feinstein sittin in a tree..
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
First came love,
Then came marriage
Then came Hayden with a baby carriage.
—
Of course now that the honeymoon and marriage is over…..