Rumor has it that
General Michael Hayden will be nominated to replace Porter Goss.
Republican sources told TIME that the White House plans to name his replacement on Monday: Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, who as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence has been a visible and aggressive defender of the administration's controversial eavesdropping program. His nomination is sure to reignite the battle over the program on Capitol Hill, where one House Democrat promises "a partisan food fight" during the confirmation process.
Setting aside the obligatory quote that makes Democrats look petty, I wonder why they didn't mention his previous job.
General Hayden is familiar to readers of James Risen's
State of War and anyone who's been following the NSA eavesdropping scandal. That's because he was
Director of the NSA when the program began:
After the special program started, Congressional leaders from both political parties were brought to Vice President Dick Cheney's office in the White House. The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency's director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said
The CIA Director position is one that is confirmed by Congress. Remember how the Senate Intelligence Committee has yet to hold hearings on the matter? Remember how we couldn't force the issue because we're in the minority? If this nomination is indeed put forth, we'll finally get the chance to have our side ask questions about it. That "partisan food fight" could be the best opportunity for our patriots to stand up and defend our Constitution. Let's hope we get to find out more about statements like this from an appearance by Hayden at the National Press Club in January:
JONATHAN LANDAY: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "We reasonably believe." You have to go to the FISA court or the Attorney General has to go to the FISA court and say, "We have probable cause." And so what many people believe, and I would like you to respond to this, is that what you have actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of "probable cause," because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief. You have to show a probable cause. Can you respond to that, please?
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order, alright? The Attorney General has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear, okay -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees at the National Security Agency is familiar with, it's the fourth, alright? And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. So, what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer and don't want to become one -- but 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're lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
AMY GOODMAN: The Deputy Director of National Intelligence, former head of the National Security Agency, Michael Hayden, being questioned yesterday at the National Press Club. That last reporter, after Jim Bamford asked his question, was Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder, editor and publisher pointing out, well, this is the Fourth Amendment: the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. We are going wrap up with Jim Bamford, live in our Washington studio. Your response to this questioning, Jim Bamford?
JAMES BAMFORD: Well, Amy, that is really the key issue here, because what seems to be happening is that the Bush administration, the Attorney General, General Hayden have all taken it upon themselves to violate the law. The law that was set up by Congress called for a probable cause -- issuing of a probable cause and taking that to the FISA court. And what they've done is say, `We don't believe in that. We want to lower the standard -- which encompasses far greater numbers of people -- lower the standard to reasonable belief.' And because they couldn't go into a court and argue, `We just have a reason to believe this is taking place,' the court would say, `Well, that's not good enough; we want you to have a probable cause' -- they decided simply to violate the law. And that, I think, is something that has to be decided in the court or by a special prosecutor.
Probable, reasonable, what's the dif, eh? Let's hope we get some answers that expose this dangerous program for what it is.