Former NSA Director Nominated to Head CIA

Originally posted by jsobecky

Here's just a few of many anecdotes to describe the danger of recording logs of all telephone calls.

Here's just a few of many anecdotes to describe the danger of allowing someone to cut your hair:

The difference is that the anecdotes I outlined above happen everyday across the world. That is the danger, is that these activities are already a prominent part of business and politics and this is just one more way for someone to achieve those aims. Whereas your paranoia about getting haircuts do not comprise activities that occur everyday. Do you understand the difference, or does this manichean mentality render all forms of skepticism towards the government as moot? Do I really need to point out to you the many times the government has betrayed the trust of the public?

Sorry about the triple posts. My system seems to be hiccuping today.

Or maybe being re-routed.

Originally posted by marg6043
...but a conversation of you with somebody else in the phone talking about how much you may disagree with your government and want them out of power in some countries can be the death of you and your family.

Marge, honesty, I’ve had enough of this, where the... are you getting this from? Marge’s infinite bag of wisdom? All you do is post you views with little of no supporting evidence and you think people are suppose to by into them because???

Some examples of this are listed below.

Originally posted by marg6043
He was picked because he already is familiar with the illegal wiretapping of American citizens and has experience with keeping secrets.

Originally posted by marg6043
He is the man needed by the Bush administration to keep his mouth shut and kept the illegal spying going.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

WestPoint23


Is not working my friend the links and quotes all over these boards about the new appointee are real, truthful and undeniable.

Is not working my friend you can not cover the corruption under the present administration any more than you can cover the entire sky with the palm of your hand.

On if you cover your eyes then you will not see the rest of the sky

Thanks for making my point, I’ve had enough of this silliness, thank you ATS for the ignore button.

Just out of curiosity, do you have an answer for my earlier question, WestPoint?

On a related note, what's your opinion of the CIA purge? Do you think it's wise to play politics with intelligence?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Thanks for making my point, I’ve had enough of this silliness, thank you ATS for the ignore button.

I will never do something like that to you no matter how much I disagree with you.

I am truly hurt.

Originally posted by marg6043I will never do something like that to you no matter how much I disagree with you.

Hey Marge, you remember how Bush would only hold speeches when no dissenters were around and even forced attendees to sign "Loyalty Pledges"? Some people just can't handle criticism and would rather speech be suppressed. I like your attitude about it though. Even if you disagree, you won't try to hide yourself from them.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
On a related note, what's your opinion of the CIA purge?

President Bush has been in office for 5 years. He kept all the people in the CIA from the Clinton Adminstration, and they are the ones playing politics with intelligence.

President Bush should have cleaned house a long time ago...

-- Boat

exactly boatphone, we love this policy...its called deniablity. Yep that fits pretty well actually. It seems to work pretty good so far so why stop now?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

On a related note, what's your opinion of the CIA purge? Do you think it's wise to play politics with intelligence?

Isn't this what they teach at Harvard Business School? Or why Skull and Bones exists? And if there are any morals involved, it's to play on those of the victims they seek to support these unholy causes.

Absolutely not, WyrONe. But when has a little wisdom ever stopped them? Probably not since the 30's. Never forget it's all about the mighty dollar and who has the most of them.

Kissinger said "“Military men are just stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy”. But they'll take orders and see them followed thru. And like Marg was saying earlier, they become politicized. Then we have stupid political animals to be used like pawns... if you've followed any of Henry's policies.

Meanwhile, career intel employees do what they can to stay apolitical. They have no control over which party is in power (or do they?), they just wish to do their job. But most are wholly conscious enough to want to do it within the law.

This military man is being sent there to see to it that they do it how he tells them to. Add him to the list of All The President's Men.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
exactly boatphone, we love this policy...its called deniablity. Yep that fits pretty well actually. It seems to work pretty good so far so why stop now?

What?

-- Boat

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
On a related note, what's your opinion of the CIA purge? Do you think it's wise to play politics with intelligence?

If almost 5 years after 9/11 the CIA still cant get its act together then its time to shift a few people around. No politics, just doing what needs to be done. I understand your concern that Hayden is an electronic’s man but the administration and the CIA remain committed to increasing the human intelligence capabilities. I have no doubt that Hayden will also be committed to that goal. Overall his long experience in the intelligence community assures me that he is capable of running the CIA even though its mission is bit different than the NSA’s and I believe that he can institute the changes necessary to streamline the intelligence gathering, processing, and sharing processes at the CIA. I wont speculate as to why Goss resigned but I am confident in Hayden's abilities.

Here’s a good article regarding the current situation at the CIA.

[edit on 12-5-2006 by WestPoint23]

Speaking of Lt. Gen. Hayden, I came across the Center for Media and Democracy's report. Yes, he has impeccable credentials. But when it comes down to being a "yes man", the article has some very interesting things to say about his "conflicts of interest".:

Michael V. Hayden
Hayden, while serving as the director of the National Security Agency, "contracted the services" of retired Lt. Gen. James C. King, then a senior vice president of MZM Inc., the "company at the center" of the Randy "Duke" Cunningham bribery scandal, "according to two former employees of the company," Justin Rood reported May 8, 2006, for TPM Muckraker.

MZM Inc. was owned and operated by Mitchell J. Wade, "who has admitted to bribing former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham with $1.4 million in money and gifts. Wade has also reportedly told investigators he helped arrange for prostitutes to entertain the disgraced lawmaker, and he continues to cooperate with a federal inquiry into the matter," Rood wrote. "King has not been implicated in the growing scandal around Wade's illegal activities. However, federal records show he contributed to some of Wade's favored lawmakers, including $6000 to Rep. Virgil Goode (D-VA) and $4000 to Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL)," Rood wrote. Harris is now "in hot water" in her own defense contractor investigation.

"Before joining MZM in December 2001, King served under Hayden as the NSA's associate deputy director for operations, and as head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency," Rood wrote. In 2004 and 2005, while working at NSA Headquarters in Ft. Meade, Maryland, King was "doing special projects for Hayden as an MZM employee," Rood reported. The exact details of these activities are unknown, although Rood learned that one former employee "said he thought [King] was doing 'special projects' for the director," while another "speculated it was 'high-ranking advisory work.'"

It seems that Lt. Gen. Hayden has more than his hands full in this MZM mess, doesn't he?

And of course, there's that little business about the warrantless "wiretapping"--especially when it has to do with such a miniscule thing as the Fourth Amendment:

Michael V. Hayden

Hayden received personal criticism for his role in the controversy when he spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 23, 2006, to defend the practice of warrantless surveillance. During the question and answer period following his speech, Hayden appeared to deny that a "probable cause" standard is contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--which limits the government's ability to conduct searches and, by extension, surveillance.

Knight Ridder reporter Jonathan Landay prefaced a question by noting that "the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures." Hayden responded: "No, actually--the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.... That's what it says." When Landay continued, "But does it not say probable--" Hayden said: "No. The amendment says...unreasonable search and seizure."

In fact, the amendment refers to both "unreasonable searches and seizures" and "probable cause."

Later, responding to Landay's question, Hayden stated:

Just to be very clear--and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me--and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one--what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe--I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

Writing up the exchange, the online magazine Editor & Publisher (January 23, 2006) wrote that Hayden "appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when pressed by a reporter with Knight Ridder's Washington office--despite his claims that he was actually something of an expert on it."

I understand that there is some loyalty involved between members of the military. But isn't there also a little something like "conduct unbecoming"?

[edit on 12-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Thanks for making my point, I’ve had enough of this silliness, thank you ATS for the ignore button.

I will never do something like that to you no matter how much I disagree with you.

I am truly hurt.

Dont be hurt. I would save my hurt feelings for something more worthwhile. We love you, and agree with you. No need to feel that way, Marg.

hayden is just another puppet, established by bush himself. if you followed the last nominations of your *president*, than you'll see what the actual goal of the current bush administration is. they want to replace some of the most important positions in the US (intelligence / courts etc.) with some of the most neo-conservative people available. right now, i really see a police state coming into power, which will be finally established, when the next *bigger* terrorist attack took place in our beloved homeland. i hope that people wake up, before it's too late. cause if the next terrorist attack occurs, no-one will be able to avoid the order out of chaos, which will directly led to a state with martial law and complete surveillance of its citizens...

I do believe it is past the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.
this means women too.

video.google.com...

GOOD MORNING AMERICA! Time to wake up!!!!!!