As we all know, Democrats have notoriously dropped the ball at hearings. They've been missing easy lay-ups, throwing wild passes, and tossing up brick after brick after brick (Alito and Roberts, to name just two).
With Hayden's hearing drawing nigh, I figured they needed a little help which I am more than happy to offer.
So, Democrats, I have some questions I'd like answered. Since my invitation to the hearing is probably "lost in the mail," you'll have to bring these points up for me.
1) Who initiated the domestic spying program, Hayden or Bush?
This question is actually more important than it seems. If it was Bush, then...well, we'll continue to despise him. But if Hayden initiated the spying, which is more likely than you think, then we might have some problems:
On Oct. 1, 2001, three weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was running the National Security Agency at the time, told the House intelligence committee that the agency was broadening its surveillance authorities, according to a newly released letter sent to him that month by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
"Broadening its surveillance authorities"... that's a rather glib way to say "shitting on the rights of our citizens."
Which offers me a nifty segue into my next question:
2) Why did Hayden refuse to answer a direct question about political spying?
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner.
Being utterly silent in the face of a very simple question--one which he should have had no trouble answering--should start sending up red flags all over the place. It's up to Democrats to make this a priority. Spying on supposed terrorists is bad enough when it's this illegal; spying on political enemies is exponentially worse.
Democrats, do you see what's happening here? Do you see how easy straightforward questions are, how important the answers to these questions are? Should I keep going?
I think I will.
3) Is it up to Congress or the Executive branch to decide the balance between security and freedom?
What I really need [for Congress] to do is to talk to your constituents and find out where the American people want that line between security and liberty to be.
In the context of NSA's mission, where do we draw the line between the government's need for CT information about people in the United States and the privacy interests of people located in the United States?
Practically speaking, this line-drawing affects the focus of NSA's activities (foreign versus domestic), the standard under which surveillances are conducted (probable cause versus reasonable suspicion, for example), the type of data NSA is permitted to collect and how, and the rules under which NSA retains and disseminates information about U.S. persons. [...]
In 2002, Hayden asked Congress to strike the balance between security and liberty, failing to acknowledge that we already had that balance with FISA. Despite his request, his implementation of the domestic spying program indicates that he feels the Executive branch can simply ignore such an inconvenient balance imposed by Congress. This lack of accountability and brazen disregard for the system of checks and balances doesn't speak volumes for the level of trust a head of CIA should inspire.
4) In 2002, Hayden testified that he met with top level executives of companies to implement data mining programs:
I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers. (One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen). Three weeks ago we awarded a contract for nearly $300 million to a private firm to develop TRAILBLAZER, our effort to revolutionize how we produce SIGINT in a digital age. And last week we cemented a deal with another corporate giant to jointly develop a system to mine data that helps us learn about our targets. In terms of "buy vs. make" (the term Congress has used), we spent about a third of our SIGINT development money this year making things ourselves.
OK, not exactly a question, but it certainly raises a few of them. Such as, exactly what data is being mined? By whom? About whom? What the fuck is he smoking? Jesus, no wonder they're trying to keep this shit a secret.
5) Is it really fair to force a vote about Hayden's appointment when the constitutionality of the spying program is still being determined?
How can we possibly think it's OK for Hayden's appointment to be voted upon when the man may have been in charge of implementing a completely unconstitutional program? That's like making a someone the head of a humanitarian organization while he's on trial for murder.
These are the sorts of questions I think the Democrats need to have answered before voting either for or against Hayden. His competence for this job hinges on those very answers, and Democrats MUST NOT ALLOW HIS APPOINTMENT until they have been answered fully and clearly.
(Apologies for reposting so soon after initial posting, but I felt it was important enough to warrant it, I was agreed with, and here we find ourselves. Here's a link to the old one so the comments don't get ignored.)