Talk:Michael Hayden (general)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

looks like Red Forman. Jigen III 12:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversial news conference/video; 4th Amendment; warrantless wiretapping

This discussion page has several sections all about these topics, and some interrelated. I am taking the liberty of adding this new section as a disambiguation talk section, adding a new section for each of the two topics, and adding comments referring discussion to this disambiguation section or the other two topics. Since these topics seem to be the most controversial, I am adding these sections at the beginning of the Discussion page.

In the 2005-2006 timeframe, the government (NSA?) had been conducting extensive warrantless wiretapping. Different people were taking opposing views on whether this was legal (constitutional).

On January 23, 2006, Michael Hayden participated in a news conference, part of which also appears in a video posted several places throughout the web. Different people were taking opposing views on whether he said that "probable cause" was not mentioned in the Fourth Amendment.

These are actually two separate issues. If Michael Hayden said that "probable cause" was not in the Fourth Amendment, that would not affect whether the warrantless wiretapping was legal. Conversely, whether the warrantless wiretapping was legal does not depend on what Michael Hayden said at that news conference.

To clarify treatment of these two separate issues, please let us henceforth discuss these under the following two topics.

Warrantless wiretapping

2006 news conference/video: Did MH say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment

DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

2006 news conference/video: Did MH say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment

On January 23, 2006, Michael Hayden participated in a news conference., part of which also appear in a video posted several places throughout the web. Different people were taking opposing views on whether he said that "probable cause" was not mentioned in the Fourth Amendment.

This has been discussed on this Discussion page in the following sections.

Video clip of that quote from january

Bias in Warrantless surveillance section?

I'am removing this part of the article

4th Amendment

DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find an objective answer to this question.

The following is cut-and-paste verbatim from Democracy Now! coverage of the January 23 National Press Club meeting. The discussion preceding this quote was from JAMES BAMFORD and was suggesting that their FISA procedure of warrantless wiretaps was decreasing the protections of U.S. citizens. So JONATHAN LANDAY's "stay on the same issue" clearly was referring to that issue.

JONATHAN LANDAY: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I’d like to stay on the same issue. And that has 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.

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That’s what it says.

JONATHAN LANDAY: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

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

JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable— (or "prob-"; see next discussion item)

GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: No.

JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard—

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

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.

---

The key dispute here concerns what Michael Hayden was saying when he said, "No."

First note that Jonathan Landay never said anything like, "The phrase 'probable cause' is mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. So Michael Hayden's "No" was not denying that.

I think the following is a fair, neutral point of view summary of the above conversation, in terms of understanding the meaning of Michael Hayden's "No". Please comment if you disagree.

JONATHAN LANDAY: I'd like to stay on the issue of whether FISA's warrantless wiretaps decrease the protections of U.S. citizens. The Fourth Amendment specifies that you must have probable cause in order to conduct a constitutional search or seizure.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure.

JONATHAN LANDAY: The measure of whether a search or seizure is constitutional is probable cause.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: The measure of whether a search or seizure is constitutional is reasonableness.

JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable— (interrupted) (The most obvious interpretation of what Jonathan Landay was about to say was something like, "But does it not say probable cause is needed for a search", especially since that is nearly verbatim what he originally said and what Michael Hayden was disputing.)

MICHAEL HAYDEN: No. (The most obvious interpretation is that MH was reaffirming his disagreement with JL's claim that the Fourth Amendment specifies that you must have probable cause in order to conduct a constitutional search or seizure.)

JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard—

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

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."

---

So both the conversation before and the conversation after Michael's "No" was a dispute over Jonathan's claim that the legal standard needed for a constitutional search was probable cause. Nowhere did Jonathan simply declare "probable cause" is mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. Nowhere did Michael say "probable cause" is not mentioned in the Fourth Amendment.

One might say a nearly-the-same issue is whether Michael Hayden understands the role of "probable cause" in the Fourth Amendment.

To settle that issue, let's turn to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness" United States v. Knights 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (retrieved September 7, 2010)

In case anyone is interested, here is the legal procedure for understanding whether a particular search (or seizure) is constitional.

1. Is the search reasonable? If so, the search is constitutional.

2. If not, was a warrant issued? If not, the search is unconstitutional.

3. If so, was the warrant supported by oath or affirmation of probable cause of criminal activity? If not, the search is unconstitutional.

Although this procedure helps clarify the role of "reasonableness", "warrants", and "probable cause", it hardly clarifies whether a particular search is constitutional because of the difficulty (and large body of case law) concerning what is "reasonable" or what is "probable cause".

A separate issue is whether evidence obtained from an unconstitutional search must be excluded from trial (Exclusionary Rule). That issue is also not so clear cut.

DavidForthoffer (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the transcription of "JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable—". Listening carefully and repeatedly to that section leads me to conclude that I can only be sure he said "probab". Furthermore, General Hayden's "No" was talking over Landay right about "pro" or "prob". So the "No" was responding to "prob", even though Landay said slightly more than that. This is an important distinction because it is precisely at the point of this "No" that the controversy rises. My conclusion is that either (a) Jonathan Landay was asserting the whole time that probable cause was needed for a legal search while General Hayden was contradicting that assertion the whole time, or (b) Jonathan Landay started off by asserting that probable cause was needed for a legal search, then said "But does it not say probable" intending to say "But does it not say 'probable cause' someplace in the Fourth Amendment", then reverted back to his original assertion "the legal standard is probable cause", so that General Hayden's "No" was contradicting what people knew that Jonathan Landay was about to say, and that therefore General Hayden was saying that "probable cause" is not in the Fourth Amendment. Frankly, I think (b) is preposterous, even though people on YouTube have vigorously argued for (b).

99.35.222.98 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Warrantless wiretapping

This has been discussed on this Discussion page in the following sections.

Bias in Warrantless surveillance section?

Warrantless surveillance should be moved

May I say...

DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wiretaps of domestic calls section of the Article included a footnoted "reference" that simply stated "Hayden, Likely Choice for CIA Chief, Displayed Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment at Press Club". This "reference" neither linked to nor even mentioned a source for that statement. I removed the "reference"

Another reference, to Does Michael Hayden Understand the Fourth Amendment? (retrieved May 10, 2006 and September 7, 2010, but unavailable September 9, 1010), simply said "General Hayden's reading of the Fourth Amendment is correct, and his critics are mistaken". Since that seems to me to be completely UNauthoritative, I removed that reference, too.

DavidForthoffer (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Video clip of that quote from january

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha.mov

im no legit wikipedian, but should this be added?

too political for the encyclopedia http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-nsa-Ha.mov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.61.136 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a small section titled Controversial Video at the appropriate timeline, citing the (already listed) news conference transcript, a YouTube equivalent of the video, and a U.S. Supreme Court statement on the topic.

I see nothing wrong with describing a historical event (such as this news conference) that demonstrates controversy, as long as the event is objectively described and cited, and any assessment of the event is solidly grounded in impeccable sources.

DavidForthoffer (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this topic, then in order to consolidate discussion on particular topics, please refer to the Controversial news conference/video; 4th Amendment; warrantless wiretapping disambiguation section to decide whether to continue discussion under the topic 2006 news conference/video: Did MH say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment or under the topic Warrantless wiretapping. DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign award

I've added General Hayden's award beyond his standard bio material. However, I'm not able to discern what is the lowest award he has in his official photo. It's a foreign decoration awarded by Korea (based on the red-and-blue circle); however, I don't see it on Authorized foreign decorations of the United States military. Looks alot like the Army Good Conduct Medal—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djharrity (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• The award appears to be a Korean decoration that was awarded under a special order on a case-by-case basis. In this case though, someone with knowledge of Korean decorations is going to have to identify it. --Darkstar949 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No wings

How common is it for someone to reach the rank of General in the USAF and not have been a piolt? Are there others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.64.69 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

You don't need to be a pilot to do intelligence. In fact there are lots of jobs in the AF that doesn't require you to be a pilot. Staff officers have Generals to command them too. Jigen III 23:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this fellow Hayden (who was on TV in September 2016 and couldn't even pronounce "prima facie" correctly) was a chairborne chap -- a political general, an office type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No Wings success

Yes there are others. Do you want to know all that have achieved it? Thats more extensive research. However if you were to research this on the offical site for the U.S. Air Force, you would be able to read about all of them.

The following were listed under the senior leadership link.

LIEUTENANT GENERAL DONALD J. WETEKAM
MAJOR GENERAL JACK L. RIVES
LIEUTENANT GENERAL MICHAEL W. PETERSON
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IDCrewDawg (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 May 2006(UTC).

while these men have reached "flag rank" they are not Generals ie. 4 stars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.1.168 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC.

Well, all I can't tell you is two things. First, fields such as intel (among others) are considered important enough that it is possible to get promoted to the top rank without flying or combat experience. Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong), Deputy DNI requires 4-stars (just how the NSA Director has to be 3-stars).

Second, is the possibility of being politically appointed. Officers to be promoted to ranks of O-6 and below are judged based on Time in Service, Time in Grade, performance, and necessity of the military. I.e. 11 positions for Colonel available, so only the top 11 candidates "In the Zone" are elevated (attrition occurs on the way up). Ranks of O-7 and up on the other hand, are nominated by the President from a list presented by the Defense Secretary, and then confirmed by the Senate. So it is possible climb up the general/flag officer ranks by being liked by politicians. Jigen III 06:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As of March 31st http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/MILITARY/rg0603.pdf] the USAF has 13 Generals

Below are the 12 that I could find

NON-PILOTS
Michael V. Hayden - Director of National Intelligence

PILOTS
Norton A. Schwart - United States Transportation Command
Lance L. Smith - United States Joint Forces Command
Ronald E. Keys - Air Combat Command
William R. Looney III - Air Education and Training Command
Bruce Carlson - Air Force Materiel Command
Duncan J. McNabb - Air Mobility Command
Paul V. Hester - Pacific Air Forces
William T. Hobbins - U.S. Air Forces in Europe
T. Michael Moseley - Chief of Staff
John D.W. Corley - Vice Chief of Staff
Lance W. Lord - Space Command (retired Ap 1)

WHO IS MISSING FROM THIS LIST? JUST CURIOUS
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.42.65 (talk • contribs) 9 May 2006

Removed Fake Quote

I removed the fake quote from Dr. Strangelove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.59.99 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias in Warrantless surveillance section?

I think this section is trying to prove a political point. Suffice it to say that Hayden believes that NSA searches are "reasonable" thus making 4th amendment non-applicable? And to go on to say that the 4th amendment holds "probable cause" as a standard to meet if a search is "unreasonable"? Thoughts or objections to removing most of the section? GChriss 05:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The topic is obviously of note, but I don't know about "comprise a full half of the article text" important. It certainly seems biased to me, both in sheer volume and in the questionable conclusion it draws. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 07:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What you've suggested seems to be far worse than what the page currently has, because you suggest one very limited, biased view of the Fourth Amendment--one that upholds the notion that a government agency is free to choose which half of the Fourth Amendment to adhere to ("Well, this search is 'reasonable', so no need to bother with the notion of 'probable cause', which is supposed to be determined by a judge.") By that standard, any agency could search anything, as long as they claim it is a "reasonable search".My point is that yes, the section could be improved, but not by revising it to include an even more restricted, biased view, which is apparently held by Hayden, and deleting the rest. Scott D 09:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to promote Hayden's apparent view of the amendment, but I would like to acknowledge that he has a point. However, I would also like to add that a good percentage of Americans (and possibly the courts) might disagree with his notion of "reasonable". Can anyone provide court cases examining if "reasonable" is to be determined by the government or the target citizen? GChriss 15:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hayden was not trying to make a point that the Fourth Amendment didn't apply—but rather he quoted it incorrectly, repeatedly denying that probable cause was included anywhere in the Fourth Amendment. If he had felt that probable cause was nearly impossible to effectively demonstrate to obtain a warrant, and thus the warrantless searches and surveillance were reasonable alternatives under certain circumstances, he would have said so. The fact is that wasn't his argument during the press conference. Given that it was perhaps his most high profile public appearance prior to being nominated for CIA Director, and it does address a controversial program which he oversaw the beginnings of, it should be included. I don't see what political point is being proven (or attempted to be proven), as it doesn't indicate a favorable or unfavorable view of the surveillance program. He said what he said.

[Transcript removed by GChriss 04:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC). See [1]]

The text of 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterMe (talk • contribs)

For things he doesn't want to see he has blind spots. The beginning of Executive Order 12333 authorizes NSA to do things, the end of it has prohibitions. He can see the authorizations but not the prohibitions. Metarhyme 13:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Hayden was not trying to make a point that the Fourth Amendment didn't apply—but rather he quoted it incorrectly, repeatedly denying that probable cause was included anywhere in the Fourth Amendment."

Reading the transcript, I think that he was emphasizing the premise of the amendment rather than the constitutional details if a search is "unreasonable". Open to interpretation. GChriss 15:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This linguistic misinterpretation is verging on the level of ignorant. I hate to be the one to say both sides are missing the point, but they are. For the Hayden supporters, the use of "unreasonable" is not linked as a standard in the 4th Amendment. Notice that is a dependent modifier in the sentence. Without the modifiers (persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures), the sentence would read thusly - The right o the people to be secure in their persons shall not be violated. It is a descriptive term for a search obtained outside the constraints of the legal standard, namely a warrant from the courts. It is merely one of several descriptive terms to allow for encompassment of what is meant to be "secure", the qualitative nature of what the Amendment affords. The second portion describes the legal standard for the Amendment.

On the other hand, the Hayden haters are missing the point to. Arguing about whether he's miss-quoting the 4th Amendment does not matter in terms of the legality of the wire-taps. It speaks volumes about his press-staff and his ability to drop the ball during press conferences, but not about the activity he supported at the NSA. Morevoer, to contest whether a government agency has the authority to determine if a search is "reasonable" without the courts is equally superfluous. No American court has EVER upheld or even debated the rights of an agency to establish a "reasonable" standard. The only legal discussion in the same legal realm is that of exigent circumstances, which involve situations where an obtained warrant does not cover an item seized or a locale searched due to logical movement in the warranted search (i.e. the crying baby/smelling smoke argument). My point being that Hayden has no basis to contend the the "reasonable" standard argument he's making. It is a pure fiction, and not even one of legal inception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.37.112.226 (talk • contribs)

What is the point of editing Amendment IV to take out the modifiers (as you call them)? Are you saying that the words "...houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." are so much editorial fluff and don't really mean anything in the context of the amendment? No, these words are given to allow potential searchers and seizers to better gauge their actions. "Probable cause" as stated in the second part of the amendment is therefore probable cause to a reasonable person. An unreasonable person might see a pink flamingo lawn ornament in front of a person's house and decide that probably means there are drugs inside. So both standards apply: The search and/or seizure must be reasonable, and there must be reasonable probable cause. Applejuicefool 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the section as it stands is a fairly straightforward account of what happened at the press conference. As for the length, until he was nominated to be CIA this was by far the single aspect of his career that he had gotten the most attention for. I do not believe the POV tag is merited. Nareek 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The section looks a lot better now. GChriss 19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Left note on User_talk:71.139.43.195 about the implication that "Hayden was wrong" about the Fourth Amendment. GChriss 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

GChriss: Please look at this portion of the transcript (which I've tried to add into the article and had removed as well, probably because it makes the point so clear):

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

Even granting your interpretation the benefit of the doubt, the "No" in Hayden's response removes the doubt. That's Hayden saying "No" (period; full stop) in response to the question "does it not say probable [cause]?" I.e., that's Hayden saying "No. It [the Fourth Amendment] does not say probable cause." And he went on to emphasize this point: "Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment."

This is not a matter of Hayden emphasizing one portion of the amendment over another. At no time in the entire exchange did he say "it does say probable cause, but that's not the standard that applies" or anything remotely like that. Had he said anything along those lines, you might have a point; as it stands, though, I don't know how this could be clearer. If person A says "Isn't X true?" and person B replies "No", there's no judgement or point of view involved in saying that person B has contradicted person A's statement. In fact I would argue (strongly) that eliding this fact--not including it--is what introduces POV into the article (just as the repeated characterization of the eavesdropping targets as "terrorist" does, since we have no evidence for that other than official assertions by Hayden and others).

Furthermore, Hayden's denial of the "probable cause" standard in the Fourth Amendment is one of the primary reasons that this portion of the exchange garnered such attention--especially since he'd made a point of touting his familiarity with the amendment. Failing to mention that point in the article makes the quoting of that particular exchange almost pointless. This has nothing to do with one's view of the warrantless eavesdropping by the NSA; this is simply a factual error by the subject of the article, and an error which was the very reason that this particular transcript is of interest (and worthy of inclusion in the article) in the first place. 71.139.43.195 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge and understand your intrepretation, and it is a valid one. I agree that the exchange is important and worth *getting right* in the article, which is why I am being particular about the wording. My only point is that a 4-star general and former director of the NSA being flatly mistaken about the wording of the Fourth Amendment is a bit hard to believe, especially when it is possible he meant something else entirely. His comments aren't terribly precise, but he was exacerbated (becoming short with the reporter) and is known for having a bit of a temper kept in check. The best thing to do would be to ask him directly to clarify his comments, but in the meantime I suggest leaving a little more breathing room in the article. Open to thoughts or suggestions. Thanks, GChriss 06:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to say that I understand your interpretation and think it's a valid one as well, but I don't and can't. Hayden couldn't have been more specific: he gave a direct, flat denial of a simple statement, and he repeated it over, and over, and over (literally: three more denials after the first). You say his comments "aren't terribly precise"--but how could a repeated, straight "No" possibly be more precise? And you speculate that his emotional state may have affected his answers, but if you watch the video of the event you'll see that his very first "No" in response to this question was delivered in a flat, even tone--a simple correction offered on a factual point. His tone of voice didn't change until the reporter (correctly) refused to accept his assertion. And it was calm again later as he patiently explained the reason for his expertise on the amendment, and why the reporter was wrong.

I've cited Hayden's actual words to support my position; you've cited no evidence from the transcript, but rather your belief in his credibility and your interpretation of his emotional state. I would say that this (especially the former) reveals the POV that informs your judgement here: 4-star generals and former NSA directors are unlikely to be wrong about something as important as the Fourth Amendment. I don't share that belief (especially not the first part; what makes a 4-star general more knowledgeable about the Constitution than anyone else?), and I think that it's keeping you from accepting the plain, dictionary meaning of Hayden's words. That same POV--that government officials and agencies are automatically to be given credence and the benefit of the doubt--is one that occurs throughout this article.

And again: the fact that a former NSA director--and candidate CIA director--denied the existence of the words "probable cause" in the Fourth Amendment is the very reason this exchange merits citation. The fact that you find it hard to believe is precisely why it belongs in the page. I also find it hard to believe; but I accept the plain, dictionary meaning of Hayden's words. "No" means no, on a date or on Wikipedia.

Unless you can cite some evidence as to why Hayden's repeated "No" in response to questions of the form "But does it not say probable [cause]?" doesn't actually mean no (and note carefully: "does it not say"), the "disputed" text should be removed. If you choose to pursue this further here, please cite factual reasons for your disagreement based on the exchange and transcript itself--not appeals to Hayden's position, background, or emotional state. 71.139.43.195 17:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section and removed the {{dubious}} tag. I think it works better with Wikipedia's policy on not publishing original thought. Please let me know if this is acceptable, or other suggestions for improvement. Thank you, GChriss 18:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh...I just lost my entire response to you thanks to a misplaced CTRL-W. I'll attempt to recover it. 71.139.43.195 19:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting rather long, would you be willing to chat via WP:IRC or Skype? My name is GChriss on IRC; and I can be found on #wikipedia and other channels. Also, spartan263 on Skype. Thanks, GChriss 20:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I feel this discussion is best had publicly, and I encourage other people to chime in. 71.139.43.195 20:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First, E&P is an informational news industry organ; National Review is a journal of conservative/right-wing opinion and advocacy. These are not equivalent sources. By citing the National Review article you're doing just what you say you want to avoid: introducing a most decided POV into the article (which furthermore subjectively addresses Hayden's "understanding" of the amendment, which is not the point; the issue is his assertion about the text of the amendment).

Second, describing a "no" in response to an assertion as a "denial" of that assertion doesn't introduce "original thought"--it's just a mundane description of the fact, precisely in line with the definition of the word:

no (adv.) 1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement

Does "no" mean "no", or doesn't it? What exactly would it take for you to agree that a "no" in response to an assertion is a "denial" of that assertion? Frankly, I'm baffled as to why we even have to discuss this, but your unwillingness to provide any concrete support for your position makes me suspect that this isn't about the facts for you.

I've rewritten the section as well, removing the citation of the National Review's advocacy article and fixing other point of view issues (the phrase "received criticism from the media" which inaccurately circumscribes/characterizes the controversy, the repeated use of "heated" to describe the exchange, and the unnecessary use of language which prejudges the status of the individuals being monitored based solely on the assertions of government officials). I'm willing to compromise with you in retaining E&P's watered-down assessment of Hayden's denial. Thus far in this discussion the only support you've offered for your position has been your own feelings about Hayden's background, presumed knowledge, and emotional state (if that's not POV, what is?). I would strongly suggest, again, that if you want to continue debating this point you should cite actual evidence from the transcript of your interpretation. And if the changes I've made--which I feel greatly enhance the accuracy and neutrality of this section--are unacceptable to you, I'd ask that you please address the very specific reasoning and very specific questions I've raised. Thanks. 71.139.43.195 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have been indisposed for the past couple of days and am currently typing with one hand.

I think that reasonable people can disagree on the exchange, and that is what has happened between you and I. Hayden, in my interpretation, was not denying the text of the amendment but rather giving a rebutting no to the idea that his program violated the constitution. That was the premise of the question. Your literal interpretation is that he was ignorant of the amendment, and that's OK. The section as it stands now allows readers to form their own opinions, and that is what I was trying to push all along. (Before; Current)

Please be careful about insinuations; they are rarely productive. I have no personal attachment to the subject other than to make it as factual and neutral as possible. National Review isn't as reputable as E&P, but I do think it deserves a citation mention as it directly comments on Hayden's understanding of the Fourth Amendment. Take care, GChriss 06:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU REMOVING THIS FACT ABOVE?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamLincoln24 (talk • contribs)

One person who reverted you wrote, "If that stuff belongs here at all, it needs a lot of work." - Metarhyme 01:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Metarhyme you are right I did miss type telecom and according to. It was late. Your point about the reference to EFF class action suit is worng. Because the pdf talks about how AT&T helped the NSA install monitoring hardware (NarusInsight). But I guess you would have to be a lawer to understand that. So I have updatted and referenced EFFs main page about said case. Furthermore lets just say you dont believe EFF. Take a look at Narus customer page and it clearly shows AT&T. http://narus.com/customers/index.html. If you want to talk about "sentence structure" Please dont write "but have nothing to say about it". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamLincoln24 (talk • contribs)

We really don't need to reference specific pieces of hardware that an agency uses here unless Hayden was specifcally invovled with the item mentioned. Its like mentioning specifics about the Preditior UAV (wingspan, speed, armament) in an article about Rumsfield. Create an article for the Narus ST-6400 and link it under the Agencys WP article. --mitrebox 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the Program is secret, so is its history and extent. EFF has evidence that it's more extensive than Hayden said. This evidence has been suppressed. The OP wants to connect to it via this snoop switch. Metarhyme 18:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Mitrebox you are wrong. Gen. Hayden has said in the past that he has been specifically involved with over site of domestic spying hardware. In fact he has said its one of his greatest acomplishments. Furthermore this post is toltaly apropreate because Gen. Hayden has said at the Natioinal Press Club and I quote "Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about." witch is a miss statement at best. As you can read the Narus website specifically states that the sole purpose of this hardware is to collect, replay and drop data be it VOIP or IM for the government or ISPs. But I will rewrite the post to state said facts. Also your analogy is wrong. If Rumsfield ever miss stated a fact about US liberties it should be pointed out esecialy if its related to his job or a fact about what a piece of hardware does when it relates to our liberties. AbrahamLincoln24 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Use the ~~~~ - that puts a time stamp on it. Metarhyme 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments in Talk with four tildes - like this: ~~~~. Metarhyme 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the discussion above for brevity. MartinGugino 03:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the original discussion, minus the full transcript. GChriss 04:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am going to put some of this back into the article MartinGugino 04:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the Fourth Ammendment: "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."

General Hayden is correct; The term "probable cause" is used, but in relation to the issuance of warrants not an unreasonable search or seizure.

==tomf688 Plese explain why this post is miss stated or worng? Explain your self..Don't just delete without explaining.== Also complaints have been sent against you. AbrahamLincoln24

If you want to discuss this topic, then in order to consolidate discussion on particular topics, please refer to the Controversial news conference/video; 4th Amendment; warrantless wiretapping disambiguation section to decide whether to continue discussion under the topic 2006 news conference/video: Did MH say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment or under the topic Warrantless wiretapping DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Past directors of the CIA with military background

This information seems to go into a bit more detail than necessary. Can't the same be accomplished by saying "other members of the military have been appointed as director of the CIA in the past, such as so and so"? --tomf688 (talk - email) 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If the article becomes long enough this matieral could be moved to a Hayedn Nomination article or moved to the CIA director article or moved to a History of CIA directors article. --mitrebox 17:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be reckless, I can think of 71404 reasons why we should avoid forking articles, mostly a server resource thing, but still--Gosh golly 03:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"active member of the military" - are the previous directors with military experience people who were active at the time they were appointed? If so, did they keep their rank, or did they resign? Шизомби 17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is deliberately misleading, on this point. The controversy is over the appointment of career military, not of people who simply may have served in the past. The issue is whether a "military mind-set" should be allowed to predominate, in DC policy-making, or whether the Pentagon needs civilians to balance it, at the DC discussion-tables. That is the rationale behind making a civilian our Commander-in-Chief, and it has been the rationale behind the appointment of civilians to run CIA and other agencies.

The article needs to be trimmed of all the excess "candidates who were in the army a long time ago": that would leave only Truman's appointment, and LBJ's, and GHWBush's -- and Truman arguably had few other choices available, as when he was in office we just were emerging from a major war and most candidates necessarily were ex-military. The article's showing only LBJ and GHWBush as precedent, for the current appointment, would show the facts accurately -- of both the controversy and the central issue of Hayden's candidacy -- the way the article reads now it's just a whitewash.

--Kessler 21:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article might include mention of whether his predecessors as CIA director who were officers in the military wore a uniform for public appearances and testimony. Edison (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Joe Pantoliano

Doesn't this guy look *EXACTLY* like Sopranos/Matrix actor Joe Pantoliano? Wizard1022 05:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think he looks strikingly similar to Kurtwood Smith --- Howlader

Warrantless surveillance should be moved

The discussion of the circumstances that allow searches without warrants is better placed under the topic "the fourth ammendment of the US Constitution" I believe. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:MartinGugino (talk • contribs)

It will be an issue at his confirmation hearings, Pelosi says. Metarhyme 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion of the topic already at the wiki topic 4th ammendment. Is it ok to edit the discussion above? I can see maybe not - possibly a recap of the positions would be a better approach. What do you all do when the back and forth on the discussion page gets long and tangled? MartinGugino 04:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really the purpose of talk pages--to work out suggestions/differences in their full glory. Bring up a chair, a good pillow, and make yourself comfortable.  ;-) GChriss 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone would be interested in Michael Hayden, right now, were it not for the warrantless surveillance issue: he's accused of having ok'd it, when he was at NSA, and his accusers are worried that he'll do the same now at CIA. He told Sen. Feingold during the hearings today that he believes the Article II "presidential war power" trumps any Congressional legislation -- and his view of the legislation is simply that it is archaic and needs bringing up to "21st century" standards. That means more wiretaps, without warrants.

If Hayden did not have views such as this one, he'd be just another DC bureaucrat and wouldn't merit this article: the entire reason why he's here at all is the power he's about to be given and the several controversies surrounding his use of it -- take out the controversies and there'll be no article left, nobody wants to read just a list of medals.

So I believe the warrantless surveillance issue needs rewriting, maybe. But the whole point of NPOV is to include other views, such as Feinstein's yes but also Russ Feingold's, so that the article can't be accused of bias. Excluding all controversy and just listing the guy's medals etc. says "this-is-a-good-guy-we-should-trust-him" -- not very interesting or informative, and not NPOV.

--Kessler 21:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this topic, then in order to consolidate discussion on particular topics, please refer to the Controversial news conference/video; 4th Amendment; warrantless wiretapping disambiguation section to decide whether to continue discussion under the topic 2006 news conference/video: Did MH say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment or under the topic Warrantless wiretapping DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

flatly denied vs denied

Does anyone else think that "flatly denied" is weaker than "denied" in the sentence: "but flatly denied that it contained the standard of "probable cause"".

I think that "flatly" makes the phrase weaker. "Denied" is calmer, and already shows him to be uninformed on a topic in which he claims to be, and needs to be, an expert. Any other opinions? MartinGugino

flatly reeks of POV pushing - your edit is more NPOV: better. Metarhyme 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pending other opinions here, I am re-removing "flatly". I do realize that "flatly" is an adverb and describse the maner of the denial. But even an "un-flat" (roundly?) denial would be a serious mistake on his part, since the phrase has been right there to be seen by anyone who cared to see it for so long now. MartinGugino 05:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the POV question of "flatly" for a moment, this word choice is bad. It may pass in conversation but in an encyclopedia that aspires to accuracy and clarity it would be better to say something like "strenuously denied" or "consistently denied" et cetera. There is no ambiguity in "strenuously" or "consistently". "Flatly" is more colloquial and therefore less clear. Funkyj 18:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional issues needed

Agreeing with the comment by User:Kwertii, in the article history here, that,

"National Security Agency - Why does this article not even mention the NSA call database that was allegedly created during Hayden's tenure?"

Any article on Hayden which does not address the major constitutional issues, posed by his appointment, misses the point of his appointment entirely: that he is "active-duty career-military" in a civilian-run governmental system, that he worked with statutorily-illegal wiretaps & snooping & database-building while he ran NSA, that he relies upon a major Separation of Powers issue — "Executive Branch vs. Legislative Branch" — for his own justification for same... Without taking positions, on any of these or the several other very-sticky Constitutional problems the Hayden appointment raises, the article simply has to mention them, at least. Bland biography, for this bland bureaucrat, would beg every question which makes him at all significant.

All of this should, and I believe will, go to the US Supreme Court very soon for adjudication -- contradictory as it all is, it can't continue -- and when it does, if Wikipedia is to serve its avowed encylopedia & reference purposes it has to inform users about the controversies surrounding Hayden or which Hayden represents. So, NPOV certainly, I'm for a major effort to pull such controversies out of the hearings etc. detail to get them before readers, here, so that better-informed readers can better-decide. People care more about these things, and need here to be given information about them, more than they need or want to know where this particular guy was born, or whether he was a welder, or how many medals he has. My 25¢, anyway, & emphatically agreeing with User:Kwertii's original comment, like I said...

i.e. I'm suggesting a re-write, or at least a new article section, specifically identifying the above-mentioned Constitutional issues & explaining their relevance here & providing links to further info on them. Without that the article structure -- "Early Life... Intel Career... Military Career... Dates of Rank..." -- in spite of some good substance which has been shoe-horned in here -- still could be a bio on a baseball player, "Early Life... Minors... Majors... Stats..." But this guy only exists, for the rest of us now, because of the Constitutional issues he raises.

--Kessler 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"But this guy only exists, for the rest of us now, because of the Constitutional issues he raises." I disagree with this statement. As interesting as the Constitutional issues are, he is just as notable as a high--ranking public servant. I am not opposed to building up a separate article detailing the above issues and linking to it from the main article. On a side note, I am not sure if he, as an active--service general, is allowed to question/disobey executive directives. GChriss 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation vote

Who voted for confirmation and who voted against confirmation? It would be nice for wikipedia to have a record of this, although it should probably not clutter up this article. Funkyj 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'am removing this part of the article.

"During the question and answer period with the press following his speech, the following exchange occurred between Hayden and Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder:

QUESTION: 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 --

HAYDEN: That's what it says.

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

HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

— Full Transcript

This does not keep a neutrel point of view and it's not very importent to have the article. If someone wants to put somthing in about what Michel Hayden thinks about the secert NSA wiretapping I think it should be added in but I don't think this inteview should be in the article.--Scott3 19:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my edit note, this exchange is what first brought Hayden to public prominence. It's quoted at length because otherwise it might be hard to believe that Hayden is actually arguing that the 4th Amendment does not include a "probable cause" standard. Nareek 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversy over his statements at the press conference did not have to do with his interpretation of the 4th Amendment--Hayden was taking the same position as the rest of the administration that the wiretaps did not need warrants, and he was not singled out for making that argument. What he was singled out for was repeatedly insisting that the amendment does not contain a reference to "probable cause." To follow that with a very lengthy quote defending the use of the "reasonableness" standard rather than a "probable cause" standard is completely off point.

I would note in terms of sources that Editor & Publisher is an specialized source on questions asked by reporters and answers given by sources--which is what is at issue in this controversy, not constitutional interpretation. Nareek 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The reporter premised the question with an incorrect assertion that the probable cuase textual provision applied to all searches, which they do not. Hayden does not deal with criminal prosecution, so he understandably corrected her by stating that probable cause was not required for constitutionality. And the Editor & Publisher piece was obviosuly editorializing. If the context is not explained, perhaps the whole section should be removed.NomDeDroit 22:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Understandably, you'd like to believe that Hayden made a debatable point about constitutional interpretation, when he actually made an undeniably false claim that the 4th amendment doesn't say "probable cause". Look at the actual words: HAYDEN: "The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure." QUESTION: "But does it not say probable --" HAYDEN: "No. The amendment says...unreasonable search and seizure." It's a straightforward statement with a clear, and untrue, meaning. If you have any doubt about what he means, we have a source from a magazine that has expertise in the interpretation of journalistic exchanges.

There is a very large article elsewhere--I forget what it's called now, there was a debate over the title--about the controversy over warrantless wiretapping, which lays out at length the administration's justification for such wiretaps and the counterarguments about their constitutionality. There's no way to do that debate justice here, and no need, because the controversy here is not that Hayden (like everyone else in the administration) defended the warrantless wiretaps, but that, unlike anyone else, he did so by seeming to deny the plain language of the 4th Amendment. Nareek 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In the law, when one speaks of the Fourth Amendment, he is speaking of the doctrine as applied by the courts. For example, if someone says there is a right to abortion in the Constitution, they are not saying that there are literally words there that speak of a "right to abortion." The reporter made a factually wrong premise: that for a search to be constitutional, there must be probable cause. This is first year law school error (check out the wikipedia entry on Fourth Amendment), and the relevance of the exchange is therefore minimal (the reporter admitted to not being a lawyer, and the Senate made nothing of the exchange, and no prominent legal scholar backed up the reporter, while many supported Hayden). The exchange adds nothing of substance to the article, particularly when it implies that the reporter was somehow correct. It can't stay in.NomDeDroit 16:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NOte that Hayden later clarified in his Senate confirmation hearing that he was not saying that the fourth amendment doesn't have the words "probable cause" in it, so the quoted exchange is meaningless: FEINSTEIN: Do you believe the Fourth Amendment contains a probable cause standard? HAYDEN: It clearly contains a probable clause standard for warrants to conduct searches. There's the broader phraseology. And I've actually talked to some of my relatives who are in law school at the moment about the construction of the amendment, which talks in a broad sense about reasonableness, and then, after the comma, talks about the probable cause standards for warrants.The approach we've taken at NSA is certainly not discounting at all, ma'am, the probable cause standard and need for probable cause for a warrant. But the standard that is most applicable to the operations of NSA is the standard of reasonableness -- you know, is this reasonable?

In the law, when one speaks of the 4th Amendment, one is referring to a section of the U.S. Constitution that contains particular words. Those words can be interpreted in various ways, but that's not what the exchange was about and it's not what the controversy was about. Everyone understood that the administration didn't believe it was legally required to obtain warrants--there was nothing at all surprising or noteworthy about Hayden taking that administration line.

What was noteworthy was that Hayden asserted in plain language that the amendment does not contain a key phrase that it does in fact contain. Given his responsibility for overseeing surveillance conducted by the United States, this is indeed noteworthy, and ought to remain in this article unaccompanied by an irrelevant (and far from complete) discussion of the administration's actual legal position, which does in fact take into account the complete text of the 4th Amendment, whether one agrees with their interpretation or not.

The fact that following the controversy over his apparent ignorance of the text of the 4th Amendment, Hayden later appeared in public and evidenced an improved knowledge of that text in no way reduces the noteworthiness of this exchange. It just shows that Hayden reads the newspapers, or has someone to do it for him. You're suggesting that a public display of lack of knowledge is somehow negated by a later display of knowledge--if you think about that in the abstact, unconnected to a particular public figure, doesn't that sound absurd?

Look, it's bad WP form to keep switching an edit back and forth, so I won't re-edit the passage, though I feel strongly that the inserted material is irrelevant and obfuscatory. Perhaps a third party--or a fourth, or a fifth--could read through these arguments and try to make a determination. Nareek 18:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this topic, then in order to consolidate discussion on particular topics, please refer to the Controversial news conference/video; 4th Amendment; warrantless wiretapping disambiguation section to decide whether to continue discussion under the topic 2006 news conference/video: Did MH say that "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment or under the topic Warrantless wiretapping DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)