Mike Hayden's Murder Board Day One

General Mike Hayden had his first day before the Senate Intelligence Committee today, and despite a touchy question or two (and a couple cases of nuttiness from the senators present) it was a decent day for him. Breitbart has the story:

CIA nominee Gen. Michael Hayden insisted on Thursday that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program was legal and that it was designed to ensnare terrorists--not spy on ordinary people.

"Clearly the privacy of American citizens is a concern constantly," the four-star Air Force general told the Senate Intelligence Committee at his confirmation hearing. "We always balance privacy and security."

Hayden was peppered by as many questions about the National Security Agency, the super-secret agency that he headed from 1999-2005, as about his visions for the CIA.

Senators grilled him on the NSA's eavesdropping without warrants on conversations and e-mails believed by the government to involve terrorism suspects, and reports of the tracking of millions of phone calls made and received by ordinary Americans.

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush decided that more anti-terrorism surveillance was necessary than the NSA had been doing, said Hayden.

Hayden said he decided to go ahead with the then-covert surveillance program, which has been confirmed by Bush, believing it to be legal and necessary.

"When I had to make this personal decision in October 2001 ... the math was pretty straightforward. I could not not do this," Hayden said.

He said the surveillance program used a "probable cause" standard that made it unlikely that information about average Americans would be scrutinized.

This is a point that WE have tried to make time and again in this argument. They are using an ide of probable cause in these cases. Nothing else will do as this goes towards monitoring people. You cannot do that to people who have done nothing. However, a series of anomalies can point us int he direction of a possible terrorist. To not take that chance would be stupid, at best; disastrous, at worst. And to the Left all I have to say is this: Until decided otherwise by the Supreme Court, Sealed Case is the precedent that allows these measures.

But he declined to openly discuss reports that the NSA was engaged in even broader surveillance, including a story in USA Today that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone-call records of tens of millions of U.S. citizens.

Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, Hayden said he would only talk about the part of the program the president had confirmed.

"Is that the whole program?" asked Levin.

"I'm not at liberty to talk about that in open session," Hayden said. A closed-door session was planned for later in the day.

Hayden was asked about reported friction between him and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over how the NSA and other intelligence agencies would work with the Pentagon, which has the lion's share of intelligence dollars.

Had they disagreed, he was asked by Levin? "Yes sir," said Hayden.

Simply disagreeing with the Secretary of Defense is no crime. Nor should it even be taken into account, really, in the hearings. The Secretary of Defense does not have all the answers. Conflicting opinions can be noted.

Some critics have suggested that Hayden, 61, who remains an active general, is too closely aligned with the Pentagon to objectively run the civilian CIA.

Hayden acknowledged a series of intelligence failures in the run-up to the U.S. decision to invade Iraq and promised to take steps to guard against a repeat of such errors.

"We just took too much for granted. We didn't challenge our basic assumptions," he told the Senate Intelligence Committee at his confirmation hearing.

He said that since launching the program a month after the terror attacks, targeting decisions have been made by NSA experts on al- Qaida.

Asked by Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., whether a NSA analyst could look at information not directly related to suspected terrorist activity, Hayden said, "I don't know how that could survive."

Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas complained about the CIA's performance on Iraq. While "nobody bats 1,000 in the intelligence world," Roberts cited "a terribly flawed trade craft" in the CIA's intelligence suggesting the presence of weapons of mass destruction there.

At the same time, Roberts complained that the discussion among lawmakers had not been over Hayden's long intelligence-services resume "but rather the debate is focused almost entirely" on controversy over NSA surveillance and eavesdropping programs.

Which, as I noted above, until otherwise decided, Sealed Case serves as the precedent for the legality of the wiretaps. Therefore, aside from a passing question on the program (of which the Intelligence committee is the ONE committee that has been briefed and updated on the program), the focus should be entirely on whether or not he is qualified. In our opinion, and it is backed up by many in the blogosphere, he is more than qualified to head up CIA.

Hayden, as expected, drew the most fire from Democratic members. "I now have a difficult time with your credibility," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.

Credibility? Where has that come into question in anyone's sane mind? His credibility is above board, and this partisan sniping over a single issue is not going to bode well for the Democrats. It is a dog strategy, as much as it was for them to go after Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Alito. It did not sit well with the nation in watching them attack those two, or trying to attack Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation hearings for Secretary of State. It did not fly when they tried the same tactics on Attorney General Gonzales. They are supposed to be considering his qualifications for the job he has been nominated for. Based on General Hayden's opening statement--including his run-down of past intelligence experience--I would say that he is perfectly qualified for the job, and has the right idea on how to reform CIA.

In an opening statement, Hayden said that intelligence-gathering has become "the football in American political discourse" since the terror attacks of Sept. 11.

He said the embattled agency "must be transformed, without slowing the high tempo under which it already operates, to counter today's threats."

Another point he made in regard to Centreal Intelligence was that it had to be pulled away from the realm of politics, and that it was never meant to be the focus of such politics. It has its job in this nation as an intelligence agency collecting and analyzing vital pieces of data from across the globe in an effort to ensure our national security, and all within the intelligence hierarchy. It is not to interfere with the administration when a decision by the president has been made, as it seems to be doing quite a bit lately.

"Yes, there have been failures, but there have also been many great successes," Hayden said.

If confirmed, "I would reaffirm the CIA's proud culture of risk- taking," said Hayden, who was selected by President Bush to succeed Porter Goss, who was forced out after serving for 18 months.

Hayden's hearing before the Intelligence Committee was much different than a year ago, when the panel approved him unanimously to be the nation's first principal deputy director of national intelligence.

Bush chose Hayden as CIA director-nominee after consultation with Hayden's current boss, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. Goss announced his retirement earlier this month after disputes with Hayden and Negroponte about the CIA's direction.

General Hayden did an excellent job swimming with the sharks today, and kept his mouth shut when he needed to. Some of these hearings are public--available over C-Span and C-Span II. He was right to remind Senator Levin that he was unable to discuss certain aspects in open session. This goes to show that the man understands that the world he works in is one of secrecy. He knows that those secrets would be relished by our enemy if they ever obtained them.

The bunny ;)