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, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy sucks. Because whatever else is true, at least we're not fucking torturing people(ourselves) anymore.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just as having evidence something is being done is not the same as having no evidence something is being done.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Informative)
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.
It is barbaric. (Score:2)
Killing (without a trial), sure. Indefinitely detaining (without a trial), sure. Stalking to the ends of the Earth and forcing them to seek political asylum with countries not really known for their own human rights records, sure.
But torturing? Goodness no! How barbaric!
Are we not allowed to think all of those are terrible, or do you just take exception to people thinking torture is a special kind of evil on par with rape?
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: (Score:2)
It's more focused on the gullibility of the target.
"you're so gullible, you would buy the Brooklyn bridge if someone offered to sell it to you"
Re: (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Parker [wikipedia.org]
I suggest reading on George C Parker, who actually managed to sale people stock for the broklen bridge when it was first built. He scammed people in to believing he would turn it in to toll bridge and they would get a piece of the take.
Re: (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 Bus
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Funny)
> It is strange that you hear this on whomever is in office at the time. "The press is the mouthpiece of
> Yaya Adminstration."
Its almost as if the press has.....a vested interest in the status quo
> I guess there must be some magic key that controls the press when you get elected to the highest
> office
Yes well when you have such an office, reporters tend to show up when you call a press conference.
> to serve the people.
You still haven't realized that it is a cook book have you?
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Not during the crucial parts of the Bush administration, where things were radically fucked up the most: the first 3 years or so of his administration, where he lied to the world about the Iraq invasion, let Osama escape in Tora Bora, legitimized torture and set up huge budget-busting tax-cuts and Medicare expansions. It took multiple, world-history-course-changing mistakes for the media to finally start questioning him.
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.
Simply put, the mistakes haven't been as numerous or as significant, and the accomplishments have actually been more significant. We've got a long way to go before we ever get a president as bad as Bush Jr.
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)?
Uh, no, there wouldn't have. How do I know? The massive bungling of the Tora Bora offensive was never questioned while he was in office. By anybody. Contrast letting the entire reason we were in Afghanistan get away due to poor decisions by Bush himself with not optimally responding to an attack on an isolated consulate in what was still basically a war zone. Which one had more long-term ramifications? Which one could have been improved, by how much, and at what cost? That's why your comparison needs to be answered with a massive "No."
The mainstream media (yes, including FOX) tends to be a bit kinder to our current president than the media really should be.
You can't be serious when you include FOX News. They're basically calling him Hitler, Mao and Stalin on a daily basis, call him a Muslim, and do everything just shy of calling for someone to shoot him. Even if you just average FOX News in, it skews the average so far out that the only way to even it out is if MSNBC sends out journalists to literate fellate him under the podium.
And that's even disregarding just the qualititative differences between the two presidencies. Obama is far from perfect - I'm actually starting to think that Clinton was the better politician and president - but he is still miles above what is the worst president in at least the last 70 years. Comparing the two should lead to a difference in treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for...you know... the whole fraudulent run-up to the Iraq war.
The media on Bush & Co. (Score:3)
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.
Exactly what do you think the media reported on that was out of proportion to the actions taken by Bush and his administration? Under his watch we saw two unjustified wars started, illegal and immoral kidnappings and torturing and even worse arguing that these crimes were somehow justified, squandering of the first budget surplus in decades, an utterly incompetent response to a major natural disaster, and (though arguably not the administration's direct fault) the worst economic crisis in 80 years. If any
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That we know of. Most likely the current administration just farmed out the job to other nations who don't see a problem with it.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Funny)
Torture is not the NSA's job. It's more of a hobby.
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: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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
WATERBOARD HAYDEN (Score:3)
NOW!
That'll IMPROVE his advocacy!
Oh, and BTW:
Thanks, Obama! Thanks for the CHANGE!
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:5, Informative)
Oh, it's worse than just them:
http://www.cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveillance-post-911.php [cpj.org]
Six government employees, plus two contractors including Edward Snowden, have been subjects of felony criminal prosecutions since 2009 under the 1917 Espionage Act, accused of leaking classified information to the press - compared with a total of three such prosecutions in all previous U.S. administrations.
Re: (Score:2)
Our government is executing Americans overseas without a trial(even an unfair one) now.
I see you've never heard of trial by combat. Of course, the Hellfire missiles make it just a tiny little bit one-sided...
Re: (Score:2)
Were? You think things are better? Our government is executing Americans overseas without a trial(even an unfair one) now.
There's a lesson to be learned from this exchange in the movie Unforgiven [wikipedia.org] and, think what you will of me, I don't believe these overseas Americans of which you speak have learned it:
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are our "inalienable" rights suddenly "alienable" because we're overseas?
If someone turns their back on what another has to offer, should the offer remain? Besides, I'm pretty sure our "inalienable" rights don't include a trial; that is granted by the Constitution/Bill of Rights... If you mean "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - as stated in the Declaration of Independence - then I would ask when do those rights of the one supersede those same rights of the many?
It may be arguable whether killing overseas Americans acting with enemy combatants is wrong/acceptable
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a really interesting question, because the Constitution doesn't do a thing to inhibit the rights of individuals at all. Every single thing in it is a restriction on the government it describes. So this should mean that those restrictions are in place for the protection of all people, everywhere.
SCOTUS would disagree, but logically it doesn't quite add up.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Are our "inalienable" rights suddenly "alienable" because we're overseas?
You want to know the truth about your rights?
They don't exist.
Your belief in a "right to life" will not stop a bullet entering your skull and killing you. Your belief in a "right to liberty" will not stop a government agent from torturing you.
In the Declaration of Independence, the American Founders stated that they held certain rights to be inalienable. The King of Great Britain did not so hold. The debate was settled on the battle
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty hard to choose a dog in the fight of torturing vs execution without trial. They're both morally heinous. There is no other word. One thing the US used to have was a moral imperative in its actions. We need that back. Moral outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's duplicitous to pretend Bush wasn't doing both.
Re: (Score:2)
Our army is constantly killing people. After all, we are at WAR with TERRORISM. That's what you get in a war. Bring it back to a police action against murderous thugs, and we can talk about executions. Otherwise, you're just unhappy that the wrong color team is doing the shooting.
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: (Score:2)
Replying to undo wrong moderation
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:4, Interesting)
Even more, the Spanish Inquisition documented the same torture methods that the US Government classified as "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- but the Spanish Inquisition was in no doubt that the methods described were forms of torture.
Re: (Score:2)
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.]
And obviously, a policy that was in existence 800 years ago must remain in full force and affect today. That's why slavery is still legal, right?
Also, why would Christians adopt a Catholic decision?
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has never heard of the Crusades.
Re: (Score:3)
Then Socialism has killed and tortured MILLIONS of people. And very recently.
I mean if you're going to paint with a broad stroke, over a long period of time, socialists and "progressives" should be ashamed of their history. But it wasn't YOUR version of socialsm ... I get that. But claiming all of "Christianity" responsible for what happened 500 years ago, that is pretty damning of socialism if you apply the exact same measure.
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: (Score:2)
Except he was also a Clinton official and an Obama official.
Re: (Score:2)
were?
WERE?
Are you paying attention? This guy we have in the whitehouse has continued and expanded prety much all of Bush's troubling policies, and has some of his own that could have come from the sick mind of Dick Cheney himself.
In fact, our p-residient has taken positions on things that are more fascistic than even Bush/Cheney would have dared to do...
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Informative)
Obama ordered Gitmo closed on his first day in office. Congress overruled him.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Please don't confuse our dear friend with facts, they get in the way of perfectly good arguments.
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re:Bragging about torture (Score:5, Informative)
The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. But he can't spend a dollar that hasn't been budgeted by Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
And you genuinely think that each Federal prisoner's costs are individual budgeted?
Or is it that you think that the Navy doesn't have enough boats and the Army enough trucks to transport them?
The 'budget' argument is bullshit. People threw a fit about having them in their states, and Obama caved.
This might help the situation (Score:5, Interesting)
This might help the situation. If government officials were subjected to the same scruitny and privacy violations the rest of the have-nots suffer, we might be able to straighten this train wreck of a country out.
Re:This might help the situation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not quite true, ethically. Legally, okay sure. But ethically, it is considered inappropriate to eavesdrop. You have a number of options, and the least someone could do is notify the speaker that they are not in private. Even a knowing glance would do. Like you or I would do for a normal person.
Liveblogging everything you catch isn't typically expected behavior.
Not saying the 'dose of your own medicine' thing isn't awesome, because it is. But it does come up a bit unclean.
Re: (Score:3)
And the NSA's position is that mass-evesdropping on millions telephone conversations is legal, ethics be damned, and so they shall.
I'm going the own-medicine route here.
I think we should "legal term" this guy (Score:2)
I bet it'll change his outlook.
Re: (Score:2)
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:I think we should "legal term" this guy (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking as a former Marine who *has* been waterboarded (as an exercise, not as part of an interrogation) I can say it's a thoroughly terrifying ordeal. It's probably the scariest experience I've ever had during my entire time in the Corps despite the fact that I *knew* no permanent harm was being done to me. And that's exactly why I support it. Fully. Without any reservations whatsoever. 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?
And don't give me any crap about how we should just leave these people alone and they'll leave us alone. The world's too small and our ideologies are too diametrically opposed for that. Britain, France, and the U.S. tried leaving Nazi Germany alone and that didn't work out so well in the end.
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: (Score:3)
Nazi Germany was an aggressive imperialist state arming itself on their doorstep, not a bunch of whackos on the other side of the world who wouldn't give two shits about the US if they weren't propping up Israel and 'defiling' their holy sites in Saudi Arabia.
Fascinating. (Score:5, Informative)
Torture is indeed a legal term (Score:2)
but that doesn't make its referent any less barbaric or useless. Also, the irony of this article is pretty.
Guys has some brass ones... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Guys has some brass ones... (Score:4, Funny)
should have poured a cup of water on him
Turnabout is Fair Play (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly what is required. We all need to out these people, all of them who work for the NSA and CIA, and subject them to constant surveillance, harassment, and ostracism. Perhaps an open source project to map and publicize the personnel of these agencies, as an exercise in democratic resistance to creeping tyranny. Heck, we can even enlist the assistance of kindly freedom-loving people around the world to ensure it will be impossible to shut down. The American government needs to understand the American people are onto them and deem them the enemies of freedom they are. Whether further, more stringent measures are required remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps an open source project to map and publicize the personnel of these agencies, as an exercise in democratic resistance to creeping tyranny.
They'd throw you into a black hole and you'd never be seen again.
Isn't it a bit rude.... (Score:2, Funny)
Okay sure... it's not illegal, but really
And while I know that sometimes you can't help but overhear stuff that's happening in a nearby conversation, that still doesn't mean you have to pay enough attention to what you heard to actually do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're recognizable and discussing something that occurred in your time as a public official in a crowded train, your expectation of anonymity is gone. I don't care whether you're a huge douchebag or not at that point.
Re:Isn't it a bit rude.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it a bit rude to actively listen in on other people's conversations, even if you *can* incidentally hear them?
Congratulations! You are now starting to understand the problem of indiscriminate surveillance.
On a side note: if Hayden has nothing to hide, he should be fine with people listening in to his conversations, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And isn't a bit terrifying that the former director of the NSA *and* CIA doesn't realize that a PUBLIC phone conversation can be overheard? I mean, even second rate TV screenwriters have figured that out...
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit; No mod points today.
Hey! Someone please mod the parent up!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Did I suggest that the NSA's eavesdropping was any less inappropriate? At most, I'd suggest it may not *ACTUALLY* be unconstitutional, and even if it weren't, that still doesn't necessarilly mean that it's a good thing. Legal != moral.
Also, if you'll forgive the cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right.
How the heck ... (Score:4, Interesting)
How the heck does a former NSA director come to be talking about such things in public?
It's like fight club, you don't talk about it in front of other people.
I should think sitting on a train conducting this interview would be an epic breach of both his secrecy agreements, and his common sense.
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: (Score:3)
This makes zero sense. The NSA wants you to say what you think so they can target you with it. Stifling speech makes it infinitely more difficult to connect the dots and create a narrative. Not a single person in the intelligence community can honestly think "hey our jobs would be easier if people hid their intents behind silence".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How the heck ... (Score:5, Informative)
Horseshit.
See, the fact that Hayden has actually responded to this and asserted the guy was a liberal activist [calgaryherald.com] who misunderstood him
I trust the fact that it happened, I trust the fact that Hayden responded to it, and I don't trust Hayden at all. This is a guy who has claimed that torture was merely a legal definition which could be skirted around -- which in my books makes him a bit of a sleazebag.
Are you suggesting there is evidence this never happened? Or that the guy overhearing truly got it all wrong? People like this love to try to weasel on what they actually said and what it actually meant, but I find it much more plausible than "guy sitting on train makes up conversation between NSA former director and someone else".
Re: (Score:3)
And since he then proceeded to pose for a picture [ibtimes.co.uk] with the guy, I'd say evidence this actually happened is pretty incontrovertible.
Then it comes down to whose version of events you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
There is some corroboration by the photo to be considered. And if the tweets had been libelous then they would be actionable. So either the guy decided not to (threaten to) sue, or he knew he couldn't win a suit, logically speaking.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd guess the simplest explanation is true: He's probably just a busy guy. Don't you work on the train, too?
this is not eavesdropping it's reporting (Score:5, Informative)
Reporting on how our government ignores our Rights under all the amendments in the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions.
Everyone is a reporter now.
Everyone.
Hit Record.
Re: (Score:3)
Not everyone is a journalist however. That is the dangerous part. Where a blogger is not granted the same protections under the law/constitution as a journalist there is no true civilian reporter. We need to be watchful of the courts and how they rule on bloggers rights, as the repercussions will be extremely important in the future.
Brin's Transparent Society (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
he could have gone to the toilet.
speaking in public is rude, but I guess the guy is pretty rude to begin with. and not only that but stupid too.
oh and guilty of talking shit about the system to reporters too, so why isn't he being held for treason?
Re: (Score:2)
he could have gone to the toilet.
speaking in public is rude, but I guess the guy is pretty rude to begin with. and not only that but stupid too.
oh and guilty of talking shit about the system to reporters too, so why isn't he being held for treason?
I don't think he works for the system anymore. And why not talk in the clear about his opinions. He's afforded his opinion is he not? Right or wrong, that is/was the beauty of the free speech thing we tried for a while...You could have an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NSA, meet HUMINT.
PROOF that Twitter is the Spawn of the Devil (Score:5, Funny)
OBSERVATION: When given the means and opportunity to make an actual audio recording of Mr. I-Listen-To-You that would have been admissibly real, capable of rendering into a complete transcript, with real historical value... instead choosing to tap out 3rd party observations.
CONCLUSION: Twitter causes brain damage.
The jury is still out on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
So is my text message about acquiring bomb components. Those are all codewords for take-out Chinese food.
"Picking up the dry cleaning" is the code word for arming the WMD.