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
My, you folks have been busy.
Paul still doesn’t get it when he keeps repeating “1) Was Feinstein emotional and if she was 2) was she too emotional? ”
Paul, Your questions are irrelevant! Hayden’s use of the characterization was to dismiss her.
If she was emotional, and I hope she was, was it because the CIA’s torture was far worse than what she was told? Or was it because the CIA lied to her? Or was it because the CIA spied on her staff/committee? Or was it because the report would be released (leaked) and she would be exposed as someone who knew and didn’t object at the time? I don’t know the answers to these questions. But I do know that Hayden’s comment was misogynistic and inappropriate, the kind of comment that is regularly to dismiss women.
As to your comment about the male politician who cried, surely you are referring Ed Muskie, the Democrat, who was subjected to Republican lies that took him out of the presidential race.
bettykath – from the liberals’ favorite blog
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/john-boehner-swearing-in_n_2404450.html
another hit on Boehner
https://ebonymompolitics.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/is-john-boehner-emotional-or-does-he-have-an-emotional-problem/
bettykath – you are now number 3 to hope she was emotional. Now the question is, was she too emotional? If she was too emotional, then Hayden was telling the truth. It is not a sexist comment. I, myself, have become emotional and sometimes, too emotional. When I am too emotional it clouds my judgment and I think it does the same to everyone. It isn’t sexist or misogynist. I am male. Anecdotally, it seems to happen to all of us at some point or points.
I get it bettykath. When this thread started certain people were twisted in knots because they thought Gen. Hayden was being misogynistic. I am just trying to find out if what he said is the truth. This is a woman, who, according to Senator Wyden, has read millions of SIC documents. Surely she knows if she has been lied to or not. So, can we have a search for the truth or are we going to continue to avoid the issue and attack the messenger?
” The Obama administration released 68,000 felons who were illegal immigrants back into the United States. I am emotional about that.”
I am sure we are all concerned for you as a person and sincerely hope that you find some relief from your distress.
But the question remains does your emotion in any way influence or have any implication at all for our national immigration policy or our policy regarding the handling of illegal alien felons?
It is difficult to see how your emotion could have any effect on applicable law. It is difficult to see how you emotion could have any effect on the facts of any of the cases. It is difficult to see how you emotion could have any effect on the past actions of LE officers, judges or administration officials.
I would argue you emotion has absolutely nothing to do with the important national issue of immigration policy and how we treat illegal alien felons or how we evaluate those issues.
Perhaps you would like to give a more detailed explanation why we should give serious consideration to your emotion when we evaluate the issue of immigration?
I would argue that Feinstein’s emotion or lack of it is similarly irrelevant to our evaluation of the CIA, torture and other war crimes.
The applicable laws, the policies, the facts of what was done are not influenced in any way by anyone’s emotion.
Emotion felt by anyone is completely irrelevant to our evaluation of the serious question of torture and war crimes.
I would hope that elected officials, administration officials, judges, and LE officers all have an emotional commitment to the enforcement of our laws.
But when we evaluate a national policy, the emotion of someone involved with the development or administration of that policy is irrelevant.
bigfatmike – it was posited that Feinstein was right to be emotional about the SIC report and why wasn’t I. I find Feinstein and her ilk to be performing Kabuki theatre regarding this subject. I have had a hard time getting anyone to even answer two simple questions 1) Was Feinstein emotional and if she way 2) was she too emotional?
BTW, a couple of things I found out about Feinstein when I searched her is that she is one of the richer Senators (high in the 1%) and she is the oldest currently serving senator.
I can tell you from following the current national administration, that your hopes are being dashed as we speak.
” I have had a hard time getting anyone to even answer two simple questions 1) Was Feinstein emotional and if she way 2) was she too emotional? ”
So what if it was posited. You can posit anything you want to. Emotion is still irrelevant to anything important about war crimes and the architects of the policies that led to war crimes.
One possible reason that few have any interest in those questions is that they are irrelevant to the important question of how the US should deal with vital issues like torture, rendition, wars of aggression and the individuals who implemented related criminal policies.
I don’t think for a minute think the US will have war crime trials anytime soon.
But these are important issues that require serious consideration by everyone.
For anyone who supposes that war crime trials are a bit of a fringe issue just let the Cheneys and Haydens of the world try a vacation in Spain or the French riviera and see what happens.
BTW, I initially bought into the idea that we would gain little from the prosecution of war crimes and the process would be hugely divisive. I assumed the nation would recover its sanity after the wars were largely over.
But now we have war criminals crowing that there policies were just, wise and necessary.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have to prosecute war criminals unless we want to allow war crimes to become a standard of our law.
bigfatmike – I have never seen so many people, yourself included, who are willing to hang people first and then give them a fair trial.
The people who started commented on this particular thread have been complaining that Gen. Hayden was a misogynist for saying Feinstein was too emotional. I am trying to get people back to that point. They have vilified Gen. Hayden for vilifying Feinstein, but I am trying to get to the truth of the matter. 1) Was Feinstein emotion (two people have agreed she was and rightly so) and if so 2) was she too emotional? So far, no takers. Want to take a shot at this?
I happen to believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty regardless of the evidence. If you want to try Gen. Hayden, then put the evidence on the table in front of an open court. No secret courts, no secret deals with the administration. It all hits the fan. I want the trials televised so we can all see what is happening.
This administration has not been forthcoming on Fast and Furious, do you really think any redacted report on torture has real value? Do you really think the current administration has not covered its collective backside? Do you really think Feinstein would not cover for the current administration? It is all smoke and mirrors, Kabuki theatre for the under informed.
Do not forget that Feinstein, Wyden and Hayden have a tortured backstory.
” I have never seen so many people, yourself included, who are willing to hang people first and then give them a fair trial.”
If I am ever on a jury I will check my conscience and verify that I can perform my duty. If I cannot I will be the first to announce that fact.
But as a citizen, like all citizens, I have an obligation to evaluate the policies of my country – especially when war crimes are involved.
There is nothing inappropriate in pointing the finger and identifying architects of the policies that lead to war crimes.
And there is nothing inappropriate in pointing out that Hayden used sexist language to attack Feinstein. There is nothing hidden or obscure when words like shrill, hysterical, emotional are applied to women. Those are well known words used against women to avoid engaging their arguments and to undermine their authority. Hayden specifically called Feinstein emotional and claimed that meant she was wrong. Hayden is a big boy. If he wants to debate Feinstein let him debate her substantive points. As long as Hayden hides behind words like ’emotional’ he deserves our opprobrium.
I am glad you want the trials televised. I with you on that. It would be a wonderful cleansing moment for the nation to televise crimes of war criminals. I hope you will use your wonderful gifts for presentation and discussion to help bring that moment to fruition.
The value of any redacted report depends of whether the public is presented with information that it did not have prior to publication.
It sounds as though the torture report is loaded with new information – why else would Hayden and others be trying to muddy the waters with attacks on Feinstein. Any legitimate concerns regarding sources and methods can be dealt with through the usual techniques of redaction. Legitimate questions regarding the effectiveness of torture should benefit from the publication of additional data. There are no legitimate reasons to withhold a properly redacted version of this report.
If I thought the emotional state of any one, or the Fast and Furious program had the slightest relevance to torture or war crimes I would be energetic in pursuing those issues here. They are not relevant to the vital issues of torture and war crimes.
‘Do not forget that Feinstein, Wyden and Hayden have a tortured backstory.’
You talk as though this is some sort of intramural sport – as though I should be careful lest my team members be penalized. Perhaps you have not noticed but I don’t have a team. I don’t play on a team. I care about the issues and you should too. Let the facts of torture lead where they may.
bigfatmike – we have already discussed that calling someone emotional is not sexist. Boehner is called emotional all the time, is that sexist? The questions are 1) was Feinstein emotional and if so 2) was she too emotional. So far I have yet to find anyone willing to answer question 2 and only two people have been willing to answer question 1.
Actually, politics is an intramural sport. According to Wyden, Feinstein has read millions of SIC documents. These would have contained reports of torture, if there was any. Why was she not screaming before? Could it be she actually did not read millions of documents? I personally doubt that she has read the report, unredacted or redacted. She has gotten a summary from her aides or the aides on the SIC.
We have a war on drugs. People who push and sell drugs are the enemy. It is considered treason (a war crime) to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The Obama administration has allowed guns to be delivered to the enemy. Does that constitute a war crime?
Paul,
If there are war crimes?? You are kidding aren’t you? Are you suggesting that the killing of millions of civilians in WWII wasn’t a war crime? She should be emotional and so should all Americans when American officials authorized the torture of prisoners in violation of US laws!
nick,
Do we have to use terms like that to describe someone? Really?
rafflaw – are we taking of the millions of civilians killed by the Allies or the Axis? So, you agree she was emotional and has a right to be emotional if US laws are broken. Now the question is: Was Feinstein too emotional?
Frankly, the Obama administrations breaks US laws or fails to enforce them on a daily basis. I am not going to get into a sweat over this. The Obama administration released 68,000 felons who were illegal immigrants back into the United States. I am emotional about that.
Didn’t Feinstein have some ties w/ that crooked Chinaman pol and Shrimp Boy?
Nick – yes and no. The connection is slim at best.
“After 16 years, CIA declassifies new portions of “KUBARK” interrogation manual”
“Newly released sections reveal details of rendition and liaison with foreign intelligence services”
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/apr/08/cia-declassifies-additional-portions-kubark-interr/
There is plenty of evidence available in the public domain to prosecute US war criminals in court. The only thing lacking is the mechanism by which try and hold them to account as the levers of power within the charade that remains of the once was republic have atrophied and are no longer responsive to the will of the people or the rule of law.
Search wikileaks for open source evidence implicating the US government and it’s swarms of agents in war crimes.
https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Torture,_interrogation_and_intelligence
Would have to check with the attorneys on here, but I am not sure that wikileaks can be used as a source for trial documents.
Thanks PAUL;
btw – Mitt’s made a HUGE mistake in his Motions
bigfatmike: “It is the Haydens, Cheneys, Yoos, and Bibees that demand our attention.”
Yes, it is.
Here’s a video twofer, including a “Where’s the kitteh?” spin-off for Nal — I think he might have appreciated both of these videos. As someone else said, what a “national treasure” we have in Jon Stewart.
“Jon Stewart Takes Dick Cheney ‘Back To The Torture'”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/jon-stewart-dick-cheney_n_5109016.html
Paul,
As Mike A. stated, It is moot whether there was any emotion involved. The fact is waterboarding is illegal in the states and under international law. The report needs to be fully declassified so people can see what illegal actions were done under our name. And the parties responsible for breaking our laws need to be prosecuted. No matter how high up the food chain.
” And the parties responsible for breaking our laws need to be prosecuted. No matter how high up the food chain.”
I think there is a pretty good argument to be made that it is the architects of the policy that are most deserving of prosecution.
The little guys that did the dirty work are deserving of prosecution. But I have some sympathy with the idea that it is tough for a little guy to stand against national policy.
It is the Haydens, Cheneys, Yoos, and Bibees that demand our attention.
rafflaw – it is never moot when the left and leftist women have been trying themselves in knots over the issue. So, was she emotional? And if she was emotional, was she too emotional?
Here is my take on war crimes (if there are war crimes). Feinstein is complicate from the beginning, as is Pelosi. Everyone on the Senate Intelligence Committee takes the fall, including the staffers and interns. The criminal arm of the DOJ is indicted, the AG, the President and Vice President. I would suspect a certain amount of the judiciary would be culpable as well.
As we all know but are unwilling to admit, if the report is written only by the majority (Democrats in this case) to attack the minority (Republicans in this case) than it has little legal value but much political value. And since Feinstein is ‘Shocked. Shocked I tell you’ to find torture on her watch, that is my take on what is happening. The fact that there has been bad blood between Hayden, Wyden and herself since Hayden was approved head of the C.I.A. should factor into some of these comments on both sides.
I know a lot of people are complaining about Hayden but I have not run across anything that derogatory about him. Would somebody like to cite an article or post a link to something (not from the far left please) that backs some of this hatred up?
Oddly enough, Feinstein, Wyden and Hayden have history going back to his nomination to the CIA. This has been personal since then.
Third paragraph, second sentence,
When she was denying the security agencies their every wish, she was pragmatic and powerful.
I think what’s meant is, “granting”, not denying. Everyone probably gets it anyway.
What a sorry piece of work Hayden is. You should wear a snorkel every time you walk by his house.
Thanks Brooklin Bridge. Nice catch. I made the change.
Mike – there is a lot the American people are entitled to know, but they are getting none of it from this administration. Obama probably holds the record for the most lies told by a President directly to the American public. Hillary Clinton could not remember anything when in front of Congressional committees (do you think she was telling the truth?) Wyden says that Feinstein read millions of intelligence documents. Millions? She did that and could not read the ACA? Holder had a set-to with someone today who questioned him about being under contempt of Congress. And he seems to be ill-informed on the workings of his office. The IRS has said it will take years to get the documents relating to the suppression of Tea Party and Conservative groups. The NSA is probably monitoring every keystroke I make and they have yet to stop anyone. They are approved by a secret court whose judges are appointed secretly. Who in this is clean? My Senator is McCain. When he said people were asking him to run again, I called his Washington office to let them know I was not one of them. And I call our junior Senator’s office to tell him that if he followed McCain around any longer he would be a one-term Senator.
I want to see Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS Tea Party, etc. and I want them now, not after Obama has left office.
Paul Schulte:
Who cares? Sen. Feinstein has been an apologist for national security abuses and Gen. Hayden is a liar. I don’t care what either of them think or their rationales. The American people are entitled to know the truth, or as much of it as we can squeeze out of the government. The report should be released.
I think you meant to write that you COULDN’T care less.
Elaine – wrote it correctly.
Oh…and anyone linking to Red State or Daily Kos to “prove” the SIC knew things can just skip that step.
Just curious- but how do we know how much the Senate Intelligence Committee knew about the torture? Are there commenters here who have deep inside knowledge of what the SIC knew and when they knew it?
And, to those of you on either “side” who like to paint one side or the another with big sweeping brushes: ever consider the possibility that, when you do this consistently, you are building an entire base of JT readers who scroll past your comments and stop reading them? You may make some valid points, but they’re lost in your zeal to discredit the “other” side.
Elaine – you still have not answered the questions. 😉
Elaine – I could care less whether you are an old gal or an old guy, my mind is used to looking for patterns. When I started your pattern was to blog on the weekend. You didn’t this last weekend or I missed it.
Mike – we are not taking about her emotional stability, we are taking about if she was overly emotional on this one issue. If she was, then it calls into question her judgment on the issue. The question of this discussion is 1) was she emotional and, if yes, 2) was she overly emotional. I believe that most humans are both at some points in their lives. I know that I have been. The question now is was she?