Citizen Eavesdrops On Former NSA Director Michael Hayden's Phone Call 390
McGruber writes "The Washington Post has the news that former head of the NSA Michael Hayden took a call while on the Acela train between D.C. and Boston. Hayden was talking to a journalist 'on background', which means the reporter is not allowed to cite Hayden by name. Unfortunately for Hayden, another train passenger overhead the call and live-tweeted it. 'Mattzie continued to livetweet Hayden’s conversations slamming the Obama administration, all the while insisting that he be referred to only on background. The conversation also seemed to touch on Hayden’s time as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under President George W. Bush as well. "Hayden was bragging about rendition and black sites a minute ago," Mattzie wrote. Hayden has in the past defended the use of waterboarding against detainees held in various sites around the world, and dismissed torture as a "legal term."'"
Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
That's basically what I came to expect from Bush officials like him. I sometimes forget how bad things were.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
But torturing? Goodness no! How barbaric!
BTW, I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco - Cheap! Only one previous owner, who treated it almost like a national landmark.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
I sometimes forget how bad things were.
Not sure things got better. We basically flipped the sh#t sandwich over and are eating it from the other side now.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Were? You think things are better? Our government is executing Americans overseas without a trial(even an unfair one) now.
It so happened that it was under Obama that whistle blowers are being persecuted
Both Manning and Snowden blew their whistle during the Obama years, and both are being punished by the same administration.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:2, Insightful)
Because whatever else is true, at least we're not fucking torturing people(ourselves) anymore.
One small problem:
The mainstream media had (IMHO thankfully) a bit of a hate-on for Bush, so every little thing his administration did wrong was broadcast loud and clear. They don't seem to have the same diligence towards the current administration, which means we the public doesn't get to see anything ugly until it becomes too big of a story to ignore, and even then it's usually quieted down or distracted from awfully quick.
Set aside any partisan feelings you may have and let me put it this way: If the Bush administration handled, say, the whole Benghazi incident exactly the same way our current administration had, would there or would there not be calls for impeachment from the likes of CNBC (as there were very loudly during much of Bush's latter years in office)?
Note that I say this not due to any ideology, but to illustrate a point: The mainstream media (yes, including FOX) tends to be a bit kinder to our current president than the media really should be.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody said it would be easy, especially in the current political climate. He certainly didn't put up much of a fight. Maybe he could put in 1/100th of the effort he did into passing Obamacare into getting Guantanamo closed. You know, actually do something to earn that Nobel Peace Prize he got.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:4, Insightful)
He was the former Director of the CIA and a former General.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_(general) [wikipedia.org]
Re:How the heck ... (Score:5, Insightful)
To have had his career, and walked away scot-free and with a chest full of medals, if that doesn't tell you that you are untouchable, you clearly fail at empiricism...
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta call BS on this. The media were called "message force multipliers" under the Bush administration specifically because they were so amenable to whatever Bush wanted the rest of us to hear. It was independent outlets, like McClatchey, or foreign news services, that reported what might be called "truth."
It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of Yaya Adminstration."
I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest office to serve the people.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it a bit rude.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, if you're a former security official sitting on a train discussing this kind of stuff in the clear -- rude has ceased to apply.
It's not about privacy and politeness -- it's about being an epic asshole discussing things you shouldn't be discussing on a train with other people listening.
And if you're someone who has called torture 'a legal term', you should probably be subjected to it yourself. People who sit behind desks and play semantic games about what constitutes torture are just thugs with official badges.
In fact, those people could be called war criminals in some contexts.
That makes no sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
His approval of waterboarding is specific to a context. It is done to enemies of his government, generally ones who are not themselves aristocrats.
He is vehemently opposed to government officials being waterboarded (his for sure, and probably rival governments as well). He would consider that an egregious offence against propriety to do such a thing.
Waterboarding him will not change his position one bit. He knows it is horrible, and that is exactly what he likes about it. That is also why he thinks it is appropriate for them but not us.
If he was suddenly stripped of power, permanently, and put in a position where he might be randomly water boarded by the authority above him, you can bet your bottom dollar he would advocate against it. But THAT will never happen, so his position will never change.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Torture has been a staple of Christianity since at least 1252 when Pope Innocent IV* authorized its use by inquisitors.
[*I can't make these names up, kids.]
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being serious, but the 'magic key' should be obvious. It goes like this:
"Do you want anyone in government to talk to you ever again?"
If so, you play ball.
Re:It is barbaric. (Score:4, Insightful)
The latter - The GP stated as much bluntly - "whatever else is true, at least we're not fucking torturing people".
Y'know, maybe Barry O has managed to drag the intelligence community kicking and screaming up to 17th century level morality. I don't believe it, but okay, lets accept the possibility.
We still know that he has killed American citizens without a trial. We know that we still have people detained without a trial (and I can't decide if this counts as worse or not, we still have people detained whom a trial exonerated but we don't dare let them go!). We know that we have political dissidents, including domestic, foreign-but-Western, and foreign-and-Arab, all hiding out with known human rights abusers rather than risk falling into American custody.
So yeah, "at least we don't torture" strikes me as a pretty damned weak statement.
Re:I think we should "legal term" this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrifying someone's mind into complying with interrogation is orders of magnitude better than, say, ripping out fingernails, branding with hot irons, or other things that permanently damage and cripple the subject, don't you think?
"Doing X is better than doing Y" is not a justification for doing X.
Re:I think we should "legal term" this guy (Score:5, Insightful)
I see what you're saying, and I understand, and I agree that, objectively speaking, being waterboarded is probably 'better' than being, say, branded with hot irons.
The problem is, being tortured doesn't get people to speak truth. It gets people to speak whatever will make the hurting stop. It's not a means of information extraction. There are FAR more effective and safe ways of extracting information.
No, torture is proving a point. And it's not a point that any decent person/group should be making.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Who are actively working to cause direct physical harm to the US and it's interests.
Says who? (Hint: the same people who want to kill them)
Where is the evidence? (Hint: it's classified. Nobody can ever see it)
Where is the trial? (Hint: there isn't one)
Where is their chance to defend themselves against their accusers? (I think you get the picture.)
There is absolutely no difference, legally, between a presidential execution order and a Kim Jong il statement to the effect of: "I don't like you. You need to die."
The fact that you support this kind of abuse speaks volumes as to your limited thought processes, and bias against anyone who isn't you.