It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former NSA Director Nominated to Head CIA

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
General Michael Hayden, the architect of the infamous NSA Wiretapping program and former director of the NSA, has been nominated to head the CIA after Porter Goss's recent resignation. Some question the nomination of an active military general to head the CIA, a civilian organization. Others question his capability in light of the intelligence failures regarding 9/11 and WMDs in Iraq, as he was involved in both.
 



www.latimes.com


WASHINGTON -- President Bush today named Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who as deputy national intelligence director has been No. 2 in the office that oversees all the government's spy agencies, to direct the preeminent intelligence operation, the CIA.

Bush sent Hayden's name to the Senate, where he faces a potentially bruising confirmation fight. As director of the National Security Agency for six years before joining the new umbrella agency in 2005, he was an architect of the controversial program to monitor without court order the telephone calls and Internet traffic of people in the United States and suspected terrorists abroad.

In short, Bush called Hayden "the right man to lead the CIA at this critical moment in our nation's history."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


When President Bush nominated Porter Goss to this same position 2 years ago, he stated, “He knows the CIA inside and out. He's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history.”

Link

Aside from the fact that he said the very same words about Goss less than 2 years ago, I am unsure about a military general being appointed to head the CIA. I can’t help but wonder just how much trouble this is going to create in the coming weeks as yet another Bush appointee comes before the Senate Confirmation Hearings.


Related News Links:
www.chron.com
www.thepittsburghchannel.com
www.time.com




posted on May, 9 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSNN
I am unsure about a military general being appointed to head the CIA.


Why? The CIA has been run by military officers before and a number of current civilians intelligence agencies are run by Generals. If Gen. Hayden is qualified for the job then him being in the military should not be an issue.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:14 PM
link   
It's the "director of the NSA" part that bothers me.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Omniscient]

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Personally, I think some intelligence should remain under civilian direction to provide balance. Having the CIA under the direction of the military would put all of our intelligence under military control. There should be some checks and balances on the military's influence of our country's intelligence. Having all intelligence decisions made by one body, the military, especially considering the secrecy involved, seems potentially dangerous.

I think it's the goal of this administration to have the military control all the intelligence... And who's the Commander in Chief of the military? Why even have the CIA if it's going to be run by the military?

Maybe that's the next step...

This all sounds far too 'police state' to me.

It must be pretty important that he get the job as he has said he'd consider resigning from the military to accept it.

Source



Michael Hayden, President George W. Bush's pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency, today said he'd consider resigning from military as some lawmakers questioned whether an Air Force General should head a civilian agency.

"I've not made any decisions,'' Hayden told reporters who quizzed him on the issue as he visited with members of Congress, including those on the Senate Intelligence Committee which will hold hearings on his nomination.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Umm... Hayden will not report to he military he will repot to he DNI and ultimately the POTUS. So would any other person in his position. Were we in a ‘police state’ when the CIA was beg run by military officers in the past?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It must be pretty important that he get the job as he has said he'd consider resigning from the military to accept it.


Of course its important, the CIA is a major part of National Security and having the best person for the job in there is important. Him considering retiring should be a clue that the President does not care whether or not he is an active military general.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I have never been concerned about a police state until recently. Perhaps I should have been, as indications are that it has been a long time in the making.

And forgive me if I don't trust the judgment of the POTUS. Whether or not he cares about Hayden's military affiliation means very little to me.

I understand that you don't share my concerns. But that has little impact on them.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Powell in my opinion would be the right person for "these critical times". It's not like he was an advisor in Vietnam or any thing, or knows his way around the Hill.

The only thing, is that he would be the team leader, instead of "team player" hauling water. And he is already familar with or supposedly already familar with how the "agency" works;


Armitage, who Powell now claims is his best friend, has been linked by various news reports to CIA sanctioned arms and drug trafficking during the mid-'70s while working for a U.S. government agency based in Bangkok, Thailand.


If left to operate as DCI on his own, I beleive Powell would be one of the best.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
He is the perfect man in the administration group of Yes man.

He will do his job just like Mr. Bush wants and with no objection.

Taking in consideration the amount of corruption that is link to the Bush administration I guess he will get his fair pay for a job well done.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
He is the perfect man in the administration group of Yes man.

He will do his job just like Mr. Bush wants and with no objection.

Taking in consideration the amount of corruption that is link to the Bush administration I guess he will get his fair pay for a job well done.


Isn't your husband also in the military Marg?...

Are you saying that your husband is a "Yes man" and he will do anything and everything even if it goes against his morals?

Your husband and every military personnel must be mindless robots by now huh Marg?

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Your husband and every military personnel must be mindless robots by now huh Marg?



I don't see the connection here, taking into consideration that my husband is not a General turn into politician with his own personal agenda and eyes on a political career and a yes man.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

I don't see the connection here, taking into consideration that my husband is not a General turn into politician with his own personal agenda and eyes on a political career and a yes man.


If you read what the original poster has said, she is claiming that "because this man is in the military" he must be a mindless robot", and you seem to agree with her, hence my conclusion that your husband and every person who has been in the military, or who is in the military "must be a YES MAN kind of people, in other words mindless robots.

[edit on 9-5-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
and you seem to agree with her, hence my conclusion that your husband and every person who has been in the military, or who is in the military "must be a YES MAN kind of people, in other words mindless robots.



No. . . that is not the interpretation I have made of the original post. . . I believe that the appointee is a yes man under the command of the president.

As a yes man he will be like a robot to what his boss wants him to do.

He will obey blindly any orders that Mr.Bush will give him even if the order will be to step over the constitutional rights of American citizens and their right to privacy because he already has agree with Bush illegal wiretapping of Americans.

The appointee is on his own political agenda and with a political career in mind so he will do what he will be told in order to gain approval for his future.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
. . I believe that the appointee is a yes man under the command of the president.

As a yes man he will be like a robot to what his boss wants him to do.



What evidence do you have that he is a "yes man", what makes you think that?

Gen. Hayden is a great pick.

-- Boat



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
..........
He will obey blindly any orders that Mr.Bush will give him even if the order will be to step over the constitutional rights of American citizens and their right to privacy because he already has agree with Bush illegal wiretapping of Americans.


First of all, and as I have been trying to say so many times yet people keep exagerating, "American citizens" were not the only ones being wiretapped....and the "wiretapping" was done to those who have connections with terrorism...

Second, you are trying to assert that because the government was investigating certain people with connections with terrorism it must mean that 1. it was illegal, and 2. this man will do everything else he is told?

IMO you are wrong Marg.





Originally posted by marg6043
The appointee is on his own political agenda and with a political career in mind so he will do what he will be told in order to gain approval for his future.


That is your opinion, yes he was offered a higher position, but has it crossed your mind that maybe this man wants to help out against terrorism?.... and yes Marg, there are terrorists out there that want to attack us, and they are not CIA operatives or any of the other exagerations and lies some people like to claim.



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
and yes Marg, there are terrorists out there that want to attack us, and they are not CIA operatives or any of the other exagerations and lies some people like to claim.


Yes they are Muaddib. . . Yes they are we have been drilled for the last 3 years about how much terrorist hate the American way of life and how they want to kill us all.

So that is why we need a yes man that will keep everything the administration does, especially the illegal means to fight terrorism and to help keep it secret even if that means stepping all over constitutional rights.

Yes he is the perfect man he will do as he will be told and he will kept his mouth shut.

That is the ideal terrorist fighter with the blessing of our war president and with a good gag order as long as you and I don't know what is done all in the name of fighting terrorism everything will be peachy.

I never said he was the wrong man I said he was the perfect man a. . . yes sir man.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Aside from the fact that he said the very same words about Goss less than 2 years ago, I am unsure about a military general being appointed to head the CIA


Well, seeing as how Porter Goss was civilian and not military, and seeing how his tenure turned out, doesn't that render the "civilian" vs "military" argument specious?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Yes they are Muaddib. . . Yes they are we have been drilled for the last 3 years about how much terrorist hate the American way of life and how they want to kill us all.


Oh yes, I forgot, Islamic extremists love the U.S., Israel, and all of Europe....who would have thought they wanted to hurt us?.... Even before the war in Iraq they always loved the U.S., Israel and all of Europe..... Right Marg?



Originally posted by marg6043
So that is why we need a yes man that will keep everything the administration does, especially the illegal means to fight terrorism and to help keep it secret even if that means stepping all over constitutional rights.


Oh i see, you mean the stepping all over the Constitutional right to destroy the U.S. and kill it's citizens? Is that the right you are referring to?


Originally posted by marg6043
Yes he is the perfect man he will do as he will be told and he will kept his mouth shut.


First of all, I would like to know how you know this man will do exactly what you say he will. Do you know him personally and that well that you can make such a statement?

Second of all, if you really think that any "director of any central intelligence" is going to go around spreading all, or any, secrets, you are in for a rude awakening. It is not going to happen Marg.


Originally posted by marg6043
That is the ideal terrorist fighter with the blessing of our war president and with a good gag order as long as you and I don't know what is done all in the name of fighting terrorism everything will be peachy.


He is the new director of the CIA. I don't think that "spreading secret information around" is in the job description for any intelligence directors. Much less when the people being investigated have ties with terrorism.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I think the military control issue is a smoke screen...the real issue should be that he is Negroponte's lackey, and since Goss was forced out (assumably) in a turf war with him, I have to wonder; Do we really want all the power that being the head of national security brings concentrated in the hands of one man? It is kinda like the Practeorian Guard, they started as the emperor's personal body guard, went from there to controling access to him and ended up controling him. I am not saying that that would happen but just drawing an analogy. If one person controls the intelligence community, then by neccessity he controls the intelligence that the president sees and if he has a personal agenda or bias, then the temptation to insert it into his job would have to be very great. Also there is the temptation to take very complex issues and distill them into simple points and that is a piss poor way to look at the world and an even poorer way to make decisions about it. This is especially true when the president isn't all that bright to begin with. I am all for seperate, independant agencies. The richness and diversity of opinions are worth far more than the difficulties. But then I forget, this president doesn't like differences of opinion....an even more dangerous situition.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Does anyone care that this man sponsored the "wiretapping" program as former head of the NSA? And does it surprise you that this man would be the likely successor as Director of the CIA because he was part and parcel of trying to legitmize this action despite circumventing the FISA law?

Not me. I think that those things should disturb people who care about their civil liberties in our country.

But then again, America did tolerate J. Edgar Hoover's reign of terror over the FBI for many years. And in kind, people were willing to root out others and name names during Joseph McCarthy's paranoid control over Congress, if not the country.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Yes Muaddib everybody hates America but the Americans occurs, people like me that do not bend to corrupt leaders and is not blind to their deception may be seen as a American hater because I do not kiss the hand of the leaders of our nation when it comes to their decisions.

So yes we have terrorist, so what? Every country has terrorist, every country has their own devils to look for.

Nowhere I ever said that I do not believe is not terrorist so your first quote answer is irrelevant . . . just banging and pounding on the issue just to make it more meaningful.

Right?

The appointee will have not problem doing what the Bush administration has done for this country so far under his self appointed war president powers that he has very conveniently kept for 3 years and will keep for the next 3, stepping and soiling our own constitution because for him is nothing than an old piece of paper not worth anymore nothing but its antiquity value.

I was told as a born American citizen that we have a constitutional right to question the leaders that are elected by the we the people, to questions what they do in our nation and in our nation’s name because those decisions affect our nation as a whole, to also question their own appointees because they are the ones to support and perpetuate what they do in their agendas.

Following blindly any leader without question undermine the same constitutional rights given to us and creates totalitarian leaders.

I am bound to my nation and to my nation I pledge to respect the constitution as a patriot I will support the constitution and I will fight for it.

That is what a patriot does.

A president and political leaders never are above the people the people are always above the government.

Something you fail to see and understand. Pity.

This man already has shown that he will do what he is told and if that is to soil the constitution and the constitutional rights of American citizens he already has agree publicly to Bush illegal doings and corrupted secrecy.

A general that respect the constitution and what it stands for will step down and uphold the constitution rather than becoming a poppet to what the present administration has done to our constitutional rights.

One thing is spreading information critical to the well being of our nation, and another covering and allowing the present administration or any administration to deceive its citizens, lie and soil our nation with secrecy of wrong doings and illegal actions against we the people.

United we stand, divided we fall and more vulnerable we become to exploitation.

You will never truly understand the meaning of my words because in your ideologist mind you are incapable of seen any wrong doings when it comes to this administration.

And anybody that brings the their honest feelings and real topics are immediately look upon by you as a basher.

I like you as a person Muaddib but when it comes to ideologies is about time you wake up and smell the truth.

Cecil that is the issue that has been presented here but as you can see we have the few that still can not see right for wrong.

Is really incredible how people are brainwashed so easily that sometimes they forget that our leaders are never above us but we the people are always the one that are supposed to be in control of our government, we have the right to question, ask and demand.

I guess that is why totalitarian government are so successful in taking nations because is always those that support them and never even question their leaders intentions.








[edit on 10-5-2006 by marg6043]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join