"Everything that NSA does is lawful," Hayden insisted

[bigtree]

USA Today said Hayden, who headed the NSA from 1999 to 2005, would have overseen the call-tracking program.

The White House said Hayden's nomination was going "full steam ahead."



If Congress stands up an declares that Bush is claiming false authority in approving the warrantless spying on Americans, then all of the legality that Hayden says he's operating under evaporates.

The question is how far does Bush's manufactured impunity extend?

They haven't said WHAT law they are operating under. I seriously doubt that HAYDEN has any independent authority to ignore the laws requiring warrants for snooping on Americans. He likely assumes the authority from some sweeping Bush order.

He should be made to stand apart from the umbrella of Bush's fake power and declare whether he intends to spend his tenure hiding under Bush's 9-11 shroud.

[Drum]

1. They're all saying "lawful" but none say "legal"...hmmm nt

[C_U_L8R]

2. L'Awful

republican french for awful

[BadgerKid]

18. There's a difference?

Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus

Entry Word: legal
Function: adjective
Text: 1 permitted by law <drinking is only legal if you are 21 years old>
Synonyms lawful, legitimate

Entry Word: lawful
Function: adjective
Text: permitted by law <hunting is a lawful activity if you have the proper license> -- see LEGAL

[mod mom]

3. Lawful in the sense of the dictator's laws.

[Disturbed]

4. Gen Hayden is a lying Neo Fascist.

“Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

President George Bush, June 9, 2005, in Columbus, Ohio

[Kansas Wyatt]

5. CBS reported that

The NSA didn't keep track of any names, addresses, or Social Security numbers connected to the phone numbers they were screening.

Think about this for a moment.

Now, why in the Hell would the NSA ONLY keep track of millions of phone numbers and log their every activity, if they were not interested in who was attached to the numbers?

What would be the point of keeping track of the numbers then?

Unless of course, they are lying about their illegal activity again. Their story does not make any sense at all, which means it is a Hell of a lot worse than everyone suspects.

[bigtree]

6. easy to get that info from the numbers

so . . .

[Kansas Wyatt]

12. But that is not what the NSA wanted portrayed in the news

The NSA wanted everyone to believe that it's just a bunch of floating numbers in a computer program, that doesn't name anyone in any way. Their explanation to CBS made no sense at all, and is just pathetic.

My point was that they are not going to throw away that information, just to retrieve it again. So, they are lying about keeping a record of names, addresses, and Social Security numbers attached to phone numbers. All of that information would be available to them from the phone company.

My point is, even if they did not automatically have all of that information listed with the phone numbers already (which seems stupid to omit a link to that info if you have targeted a phone number), then they would have that info at their finger tips anyway.

[bigtree]

14. exactly

they're hoping that, like the reference to 9-11 Bush led his excuse with, there's enough noise to block that obvious fact out.

[BuyingThyme]

7. My understanding is that Hayden is a Constitutional law expert.

[bigtree]

8. so . . .

he's good at fudging it


QUESTION: You cited before the congressional powers of the president.

Are you -- are you asserting inherent so-called constitutional powers that a -- to use the term that came up in the Alito hearings -- "a unitary executive" has to violate the law when he deems fit?

GEN. HAYDEN: I'm not asserting anything. I'm asserting that NSA is doing its job.


QUESTION: Well, a follow-up. There's been lawsuits saying that it violates the First and the Fourth Amendment. And wasn't that before the Patriot Act was expanded to give the President more powers -- or was passed to give the President more expanded powers?

GEN. HAYDEN: I honestly don't know. I'm not sure of the sequencing.

QUESTION: Okay. But you can't say what laws --

GEN. HAYDEN: The arguments that they use?

QUESTION: Yeah.

GEN. HAYDEN: No, they don't -- these guys are expert on the FISA Act . . .

And so on a personal basis to me, when the three of them came back and said it's good to go, it meant a lot to me, and it meant a lot to the agency too, because as I said, the agency had to implement this, and the agency does everything -- everything -- with a lawyer looking over their shoulder. We know -- we know what this is. This is electronic surveillance for a foreign intelligence purpose. We know what the Constitution says, and so it's done very, very carefully. And I was very heartened that I got that response from the senior legal team we have.

QUESTION: And was it necessary to get any more info from the DOJ, or was it -- was your legal counsel all that you needed?

GEN. HAYDEN: I had -- this was personal. This was after -- or simultaneous with DOJ and White House averring to the lawfulness of the program.

whew! some expert.


http://www.dni.gov/speeches/20060123_speech.htm

[BuyingThyme]

10. Actually, this is what I was drawing from:

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is 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. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But the --

GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. ...

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1210

:hi:

[bigtree]

11. that's the first exchange on the 4th of his that stood out to me

my take (I use the same press club appearance):


Relying on 'Reasonable' Beliefs of Bush and Hayden (2006-05-09)

Bush administration's advocates have coined their own standard for spying on Americans outside of the FISA courts of 'reasonableness', which is a decidedly lower threshold than the 'probable cause' the 4th amendment calls for.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060509_the__reasonable__bel.htm

[bigtree]

9. so . . .

dupe

[Hubert Flottz]

13. So do we want a proven liar to head the CIA?

No but Bush does because birds of a feather dictate together.

[Justice Is Comin]

15. The H bomb is

going to come now from Ameri Qwest.

They intimidated them trying to make them join the other sell outs. They told NSA to go to FISA first.

Wait until they're at the witness table and the say the NSA told them no, because FISA may not agree with what they're doing.

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[rucky]

16. Everything's lawful when you're making up your own laws.

except for the stuff you want to outlaw.

great gig the President's got, eh?

[pinto]

17. No one is quoting a law. The phone companies say the same thing,

but none have said what law they're supposedly following...It's a sham, imho.