American Gestapo: The price of laziness
More interesting talk today coming from the rapidly-expanding black hole that is Bush's domestic spying program. I read a story in the Dec. 20, 2005 edition of The Washington Post that laid out an argument given by Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former director of the NSA and current Deputy Director of National Intelligence. The article, found here, says ...
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells.
"The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
This means that the Deputy Director of National Intelligence was too lazy to write down the NSA's reasons for snooping on Americans. He was too busy to be bothered by this "rule of law" crap. He did not want to have all that messy "paperwork." Indeed, "marshaling arguments" seems to be stretching it. Why should anyone with autocratic power have to do something as silly as that?
Attorney General Gonzales, aka the "highest legal authority," according to Condi Rice, offers some conflicting wit and wisdom a little later in the article ...
"This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass.
If you have a teaspoon of sense and logic in your head, you can clearly see the contradiction in these statements. First, Gonzales says Congress already authorized the warrant-less spying. Then he says Bush did not want to ask for it directly because "it would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass. If Congress already gave a thumbs up, why would Bush skirt the issue and not ask directly? Why would Gonzales acknowledge resistance to potential legislation if he thought Congress had already approved it?
I know why.
The Attorney General is lying. The Deputy Director of Intelligence was too lazy to mess with "paperwork." Neither of them deserve the power they hold. I wonder which one will become the scapegoat in this case. I'm sure the spin sometime late next week will come back to bite them, ala George Tennent and the faulty CIA intel.
Maybe Hayden will get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I can see it now. "I'm free ... from having to do all this paperwork!"
Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was NSA director when the surveillance began and now serves as Bush's deputy director of national intelligence, said the secret- court process was intended for long-term surveillance of agents of an enemy power, not the current hunt for elusive terrorist cells.
"The whole key here is agility," he said at a White House briefing before Bush's news conference. According to Hayden, most warrantless surveillance conducted under Bush's authorization lasts just days or weeks, and requires only the approval of a shift supervisor. Hayden said getting retroactive court approval is inefficient because it "involves marshaling arguments" and "looping paperwork around."
This means that the Deputy Director of National Intelligence was too lazy to write down the NSA's reasons for snooping on Americans. He was too busy to be bothered by this "rule of law" crap. He did not want to have all that messy "paperwork." Indeed, "marshaling arguments" seems to be stretching it. Why should anyone with autocratic power have to do something as silly as that?
Attorney General Gonzales, aka the "highest legal authority," according to Condi Rice, offers some conflicting wit and wisdom a little later in the article ...
"This is not a backdoor approach," Gonzales said at the White House. "We believe Congress has authorized this kind of surveillance." He acknowledged that the administration discussed introducing legislation explicitly permitting such domestic spying but decided against it because it "would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass.
If you have a teaspoon of sense and logic in your head, you can clearly see the contradiction in these statements. First, Gonzales says Congress already authorized the warrant-less spying. Then he says Bush did not want to ask for it directly because "it would be difficult, if not impossible" to pass. If Congress already gave a thumbs up, why would Bush skirt the issue and not ask directly? Why would Gonzales acknowledge resistance to potential legislation if he thought Congress had already approved it?
I know why.
The Attorney General is lying. The Deputy Director of Intelligence was too lazy to mess with "paperwork." Neither of them deserve the power they hold. I wonder which one will become the scapegoat in this case. I'm sure the spin sometime late next week will come back to bite them, ala George Tennent and the faulty CIA intel.
Maybe Hayden will get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I can see it now. "I'm free ... from having to do all this paperwork!"
