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
Au contraire – Paul Shulte;
Petters, Vennes, Dreier etc – arrests came;
because it is not who Laser is that matters.
What matters is – the TRUTH.
And with it, I’ve been pushing these bandits buttons for 13 years.
It is inflexible and immortal – long after we are all gone.
TRUTH…..
What is needed is esteemed parties (with links in DC)
speaking about how this can happen in America (post Madoff)
Who have the intelligence to realize the beasts are breeding.
Laser – one cannot tilt at all the windmills. You have to pick and choose. Sometimes a windmill is just too big for you.
appreciate the suggestions Paul – but that’s Not how you solve this.
I’m insignificant and they are the powerful elite.
Dozens of people have simply resigned from the justice system;
because they learned I’m telling Truth(s) they can’t stomach.
Including the Deputy Director of the EOUST
(who emailed me personally and then joined them when he couldn’t beat em).
I’ve talked to those who drafted the Code & Rules of Law (who bark at me to never email them again) and (just last year) worked for a couple of months with a “dedicated” Fraud investigator who was part of another Public Corruption Task Force (where the parties there said “No One is Too Big to Jail”)
Professor(s) who wrote books on corruption – have simply QUIT (believes the systems are corrupt beyond salvage).
Helped get an Asst. U.S. Attorney attention to defeat Ashcroft trying to put him in jail; and also have Ashcroft on the record stating federal judges are in collusion with high ranking members of the U.S. Trustee’s office.
Guess what happened there?
US Attorney gave former USAG a $50 million No Bid contract;
and all those comments came tumbling down off the web.
Then he became part of Blackwater ran by a party who began Clear Channel
And you (should) know who owns Clear Channel now!
The fraud investigator of the NY Public Corruption Task Force;
was promoted OFF the case and made head of a “new” DOJ OIG NYC
Paul;
The responsibility is to “U.S.”!
I could give a “chute” whether or not my name is ever mentioned.
Frank Vennes, Larry (WISTEC protected) Reynolds, Prevost, Harrold, Bell, Rothstein, Petters, Stanford Okun and Madoff
They have two thinks in common
All are in jail for scams of national significance
AND
ALL of them are connected to this case (offenders therein)!
If one culprit had been arrested (as he should have been) back in 2005, then (quite possibly) the material adverse harm of all those cohorts
might never have transpired.
What do you think will occur – if they continue to get away ‘Scot Free’?
anonymous;
It is a daunting task, taking on the powers that be.
I understand that Professors shun getting involved in constituency (if that is what we be) individual case specifics.
But I don’t understand (nor care) if he, she, they (including DOJ/ Judges) are willing to sit idle by, when assaults upon our Constitution and nation are large and nefariously blatant, flagrant and brazen.
This case involves the arranging of a cohort to become the very U.S. Attorney who declined to prosecute CONFESSED intentional acts of fraud on the courts.
Then the Public Corruption Task Force in Los Angeles was SHUT DOWN and career Federal prosecutors were threatened to keep their mouths shut on why!
How much skulduggery does one need
just to say “something”?
Try the ACLU or some one willing to do pro bono work for you. Some states have a requirement that all attorneys have to do x hours of pro bono work every year. It is early in the year. Most of them will not have started. 🙂
bigfatmike – we have yet to see the ‘facts’ yet. Unlike some others on here, I try not to jump to conclusions about alleged war crimes. And if you don’t think politics is an intramural sport you have not been keeping up.
LDL:
A lawyer friend of mine often refers to law professors as some of the worst paper tigers. Having said this, I once thought that JT was the kind of guy who might help change the world but, after a lot of years, well, it seems unlikely. I’d like to be wrong.
A goal of one who is upon the noble side of a pursuit for justice, against tyranny, cronyism and corruption; is to find qualitative assistance –
that will result in quantitative attention
for a specific result of justice.
within the context of LYING TO FEINSTEIN, THE REST OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND CONGRESS by the CIA and Hayden
my fingers just can’t keep up with my thoughts.
To the Professor’s chagrin, and at the risk of being upon the receiving end of his ire, I have to oepnly challenge one who has a forum concerning troubling matters nationally significant and important that he is declining to assist.
My remarks have been redacted before;
(in spite of reflections to the contrary about redacting critiques).
We have judge’s ruling contrary to law – OPENLY – for the sake of well to do, at the expense of the Constitution of the United States and integrity of the judicial process.
I’m an ill fated warrior in the battle – standing alone as an amoeba against a horde of contemptible Goliath’s.
The Professor’s assistant asked me about the case, upon my contacting him; and then there was no further discussion, rebuke, apology etc.
Just abstinence.
Au contraire Paul;
As per US Legal dot com;
Fiduciary (in legal sense) means;
A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party. For instance, a corporation’s board member has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, a trustee has a fiduciary duty to the trust’s beneficiaries, and an attorney has a fiduciary duty to a client.
A fiduciary obligation exists whenever the relationship with the client involves a special trust, confidence, and reliance on the fiduciary to exercise his discretion or expertise in acting for the client. The fiduciary must knowingly accept that trust and confidence to exercise his expertise and discretion to act on the client’s behalf
“Boehner is called emotional all the time, is that sexist? ”
Calling Beohner emotional might be wrong. It might be inappropriate. It might even be sexist.
But it has absolutely nothing to do with the evaluation of torture, the policies that rationalized and lead to torture, the architects of those policies or war crimes.
“Actually, politics is an intramural sport.”
Here you seem to be admitting that your remarks regarding torture and war crimes are based on your personal political considerations.
I thank you for your candor and your courage.
But I think it is a shameful outrage to use politics rather than the facts of torture to evaluate war crimes.
Citizens have an obligation to evaluate the policies, and the facts related to torture and war crimes.
“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?”
This is a sophomoric attempt to evade the vital issues of torture and war crimes. It conflates the advertising term ‘war on drugs’ with issues related to the war powers act. It confuses plain language terms like ‘enemy’ with technical, legal terms like ‘enemy combatant’. It attempts to confuse the reader by pretending that bad policy, or ordinary, civilian criminal activity are equivalent to war crimes specified in the military code of justice or international law.
The reader might pose the question: why such an effort to avoid the issue and confuse the facts relating to torture and war crimes.
An obvious answer to that question is that defenders of the Haydens and Cheneys of the world simply do not have good arguments to refute the facts or defend the policies that led to torture.
That is why they avoid the important issue of torture and war crimes by bringing up irrelevancies like emotional state. Emotional state that takes place after the fact cannot alter that fact. Emotional states cannot alter the policies. Their attempt to force the conversation to the subject of emotional state is their way of avoiding serious discussion torture and war crimes.
Laser – I stand corrected. Still, I do not think JT has a fiduciary duty to you to protect the Constitution.
Well said bettykath;
especially the nor – could she be….
Actually, Paul, those 2 questions are YOUR interpretation of the topic at hand. Seems that most of us disagree with you. However, since you insist, I’ll answer your irrelevant questions. Given the topic, a report of hundreds of pages describing horrendous torture done by US government agents within the context of by the CIA and Hayden about the torture, and then the CIA spying on Feinstein and her staff while investigating the CIA and torture, then, I certainly hope she was emotional and, no, Senator Feintein was NOT too emotional, nor, imo, could she be.
Neither your opine on the vaulted status of a Senator, nor your argument on the emotional state – are dispositive.
Emotion is (usually) passion.
I’m not avoiding the issue – you are!
Mr. Hayden’s remarks (biased in the extreme) were made from hubris on high with haughtier dismissive for the sake of the venal (of torturing).
And, if you want to see emotion;
try torturing someone in front of me!
I despise bullies – including when our Government acts as one;
and especially so by WASP elitist who act as if the world belongs to them.
laser – fiduciary has to do with money.
By the way – to those who care.
Judge dismissed (yesterday) part of my RICO case in “Haas v Romney” against some of the main (attorney/professional) culprits.
Doing so under a 130 year old case of “Barton” doctrine;
(which is not permitted to apply to “misconduct” cases).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014776579
Professor Turley;
I’m still waiting on you to do your fiduciary duty against those who are openly assaulting the Constitution of the United States!
Whether or not Senator Feinstein “was” emotional
Is NOT the point.
What’s germane is the arrogance of “man”kind to attempt to be dismissive of an (esteemed) woman by a snooty/”sexist” reflection of her mindset (which presumes no facts in evidence – and Mr Hayden is most certainly not an expert thereon).
No, Paul, her emotional state is irrelevant to Hayden’s comment. It was intended to dismiss her.
bettykath and laser – if he was correct and she was overly emotional, then he was correct in being dismissive. We have already established that being emotional is not just for females. If you saw that attacks on Congressman Boehner you would realize that.
Laser – I take issue with Feinstein being esteemed. I personally do not esteem her. I do not esteem Gen. Hayden either.
You two can avoid the real issue as much as you want, but the issue is was she too emotional?
“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.”
Hayden seems to forget that the report Feinstein is talking about was written by the CIA, not Feinstein. He sounds a bit like Donald Rumsfeld, i.e. subjects, verbs and objects jumbled into nonsense.