Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, International, Military, Politics

Hayden: Feinstein Too “Emotional” To Discuss The Torture Program

250px-Michael_Hayden,_CIA_official_portrait225px-dianne_feinstein_official_senate_photoFormer 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.”

220px-AbuGhraibAbuse-standing-on-boxIt 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

218 thoughts on “Hayden: Feinstein Too “Emotional” To Discuss The Torture Program”

  1. Anonymous,

    I find it intriguing that some fellows take such interest in the life of an old gal like me. They must lead very dull lives.

    😉

  2. Sen. Feinstein’s emotional stability has no bearing on whether the report should be released. Gen. Hayden’s views of Sen. Feinstein’s emotional stability has no bearing on whether the report should be released. Neither Sen. Feinstein’s nor Gen. Hayden’s opinions have any bearing on whether the report should be released.

    The report should be released.

    1. Please credit the original author. That is rafflaw’s work. He deserves full credit for it.

  4. Paul, It is more than odd. But, it is what it is. I had a guy named Idealist who was so helpful to me in understanding how some folks operated around here. Idealist was an iconoclast and laughed @ by some. But, he understood the workings here and helped guide me through the land mines. Idealist died last year. I have tried to help others as he helped me. This blog is in transition. There are some riptides in the water. You don’t fight a riptide, you calmly swim parallel, and you will get out of it. As I’ve said to you previously, reading archives will also help you. It did me. You’re too valuable a voice to be lost.

  5. Just in the past month or so we have had MANY new interesting commenters. It is delightful to have more diversity in both socioeconomic, cultural, and just free thinkers. I’m very much pleased to see more female commenters. We still need some regular black and Latino. I have long thought Jonathan should have a former student be a Guest Blogger. That would bring in some young people, we skew pretty old..AARP demographic.

  6. Paul, They are trying to get you deleted or banned. Keep your cool, dude. It’s fine to hammer them on not answering the simple question, but they won’t. Stay above the fray, you’re better.

    1. It is odd that such a simple question is not answered. As for the AARP demographic, we are the only ones who have the time to constantly keep up with the site. Darren must have dumped 20 articles on us the other week. JT is a couple a day, not including the cute doggie one. Not sure what happened to Elaine, she was more active as a guest blogger when I started, now she is more of a commenter/poster.

    1. anonymous – I am sure you are trying to make a point. Just come out with it. Actually, I am a benign dictator.

  9. Paul,
    Why wouldn’t someone get emotional over our country torturing scores of prisoners and killing over 100 in our control? I would think the proper question would be why aren’t you getting emotional over this Illegal act? Calling the response over emotional is just a dodge of the issue and the facts involved. Especially coming from a serial liar, Michael Hayden.

    1. rafflaw – you seem to agree that she was emotional. Now we have to decide whether she was too emotional. Feinstein has a long history of ‘waving the bloody shirt of Harvey Milk’ so she is always suspect on an emotional level. Feinstein also has been aware of this alleged illegal act(s) for some time. According to one of the other Democratic members of the committee, Feinstein has seen millions of pages of documents in Intelligence hearings. So, the question is why now? And was she overboard? Attacking the messenger is just an ad hominem attack to dodge the real issue.

  10. Elaine – stick to the topic. Don’t attack me or Hayden. Was Feinstein emotional and if she was, was she too emotional? Yes, no.

  12. anonymous – thought I had responded to you. Guess the spam filter ate it.

    I quit reading the article after
    “Now, 40 years later, everyone who knows me would rather volunteer for a
    root canal operation at a school for spastic dental students than ask me a
    question about authoritarianism. My wife has never read a single page in any of
    my books. Few of my colleagues in the psychology department at the University
    of Manitoba have asked about my research since 1973.”

    1. We all play by the same rules on here Elaine. Nobody is teacher’s pet.

    1. Elaine – stick to the topic. Don’t attack me or Hayden. Was Feinstein emotional and if she was, was she too emotional? Yes, no.

  16. God, can’t type today. Don’t take me to task, geez, sorry. 🙂

    1. Elaine M – if you think bettykath is cogent do not every take to task for getting off topic. 😉

  19. Paul, Great link. Jay Carney has become that bullshitting Jon Lovitz character on SNL. Not only do women get paid less in the WH, they have much less influence than w/ W. Valerie “Rasputin” Jarrett is the main reason. NOBODY can squelch women like other Machiavellian women.

Comments are closed.