Hayden On The Spot

Scott Shane of the Times makes us smile with this backgrounder on the impending Hayden hearing:

C.I.A. Pick Dazzles Many, but Critics See Mixed Résumé

By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, May 17 — A year ago, when Gen. Michael V. Hayden last sought Senate confirmation to a new job, protecting Americans' privacy from the global eavesdropping system he had overseen for six years at the National Security Agency was almost an afterthought on Capitol Hill.

General Hayden assured senators then that the agency acted "absolutely in compliance with all U.S. law and the Constitution," and sailed to easy confirmation in April 2005 as principal deputy director of national intelligence.

Eight months later, Americans learned that at the direction of President Bush, the N.S.A. had been skirting the law requiring court approval for wiretaps on American soil.

On Thursday, General Hayden again appears before the Senate Intelligence Committee, seeking its approval to add another job, that of director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a résumé possibly unmatched in the history of American spying.

The question of whether General Hayden misled the committee last year is only one of several that could, in theory, cause trouble. Senators could press him on his role in costly, floundering modernization programs at the N.S.A., or his views on the C.I.A.'s secret prisons for terrorism suspects.

Well - it may have been eight months ago that "the American people" learned that "the N.S.A. had been skirting the law" (or not), but the ranking Democrat and Republican on the very committee questioning Hayden had been briefed, by Hayden, on the NSA program.

What did Rockefeller know, and when did he know it?  I can't wait to see the Dems hammer that point.

However, by fortunate coincidence, Rockefeller won't be at the new hearing:

The top Democrat on the intelligence committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, is recovering from major back surgery, so the Democrats' questioning of General Hayden will be led by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.

And for some inexplicable reason, the mere fact that the remaining members of the Intelligence Committee have recently been briefed on the program is expected to tamp down the outrage over this, ahh, let me check the lefty talking points, blatant trampling on the Constitution:

Classified briefings provided to lawmakers on Wednesday about a controversial domestic eavesdropping program have smoothed what might have been a contentious path toward confirmation for Gen. Michael V. Hayden as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, senators and Congressional officials said.

The closed-door sessions in the Capitol, on the eve of a confirmation hearing for General Hayden, were the first time the White House had provided briefings to the full Senate and House Intelligence Committees about the program. As director of the National Security Agency until last year, General Hayden oversaw the surveillance program, whose existence came to light in December.

...Lawmakers have said that even without Wednesday's briefing, by Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, the current N.S.A. director, the Senate was likely to confirm General Hayden. Yet Wednesday's briefings diminished the prospect that the hearings, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, would become a focus of hostile questions from Democrats and Republicans on the panel who had not been briefed on the program, in which the security agency monitored, without court warrants, the international telephone and e-mail communications of those suspected of having links to terrorists.

Why it is that folks briefed on the program don't seem to object to it with any real enthusiasm remains a mystery.  To some.

MORE:  I can't find this at the White House website (national security, news):

A list issued by the White House on Wednesday chronicled 30 occasions when lawmakers were briefed about the program since its inception, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. According to the document, the first briefing occurred on Oct. 1, 2001, when the senior leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees received briefings.

Comments

[Cash Bar]

Intelligence committee is something they all want. Any time you get a briefing it is good, unless, of course, it's Plame.

Rockefeller is dodging because he probably knows the program better than anyone in Congress.

[kim]

They were trying to do a spine implant, but it'll fail from host vs graft rejection.
==================================

[clarice]

Maybe Gonzales was at the courthouse arguing for indicting Rockefeller for leaking classified information and a violation of the Logan Act.And it was the Senator who was given 24 hours to get his affairs in order.

You know how garbled gossip can get.

[kim]

I'd still like to know what Cheney did with his copy of the pitiful little note Rockefeller sent him.
=======================================

[maryrose]

Rockefeller missing in action-how convenient.

[fletcher hudson]

Hope the will have time to explain the difference between probable cause and unresaonable search so that Mathews, the Dems, et al can issue retractions and give their blessings to reasonable searches without a warrant

[kim]

Hah, that's a nuance, fh.
===============

[ed]

Hmmm.

Perhaps the NSA program actually found something?

Frankly that seems to be the only thing that could possibly deflate this nonsense. If the NSA program did find a connection that lead to arrests or captures then it would be extremely difficult to use it against the administration.

[The Unbeliever]

Wait, isn't "Senate Intelligence Committee" an oxymoron?

[azredneck]

Kim: Rumor is that Murtha was the source for the transplant.

[Pofarmer]

"If the NSA program did find a connection that lead to arrests or captures then it would be extremely difficult to use it against the administration."

Wrong ed, if someone was arrested or captured it would mean their civil rights were almost surely abused. I can just see the torrent of lawyers now. We can't have programs that are effective,----must--build---walls, must--leak--progress.

[Wonderland]

Tom writes:

Why it is that folks briefed on the program don't seem to object to it with any real enthusiasm remains a mystery. To some.

Not to defend spineless Democrats, but I've two good guesses in answer to your [rhetorical?] question. One is that since the Administration was controlling the briefings, they got to decide what to tell the briefees about. In other words, they limited the scope of the briefings to the stuff that sounded awesome -- "The NSA is nailing terrorists, boo ya!" -- while leaving out the parts that were sketchy from a FISA or Constitutional standpoint ("Oh, by the way, we're vaccuuming up everybody's phone records, plugging them into an algorithm, and then listening to flagged persons' international calls without warrants."). Since they controlled the briefings, this would be easy.

Second, and I think this is just as likely, people on the Intelligence Committees just don't have the background in the legal and Constitutional issues that were implicated by the NSA program (unlike, say, the peeps on the Judiciary Committees). These guys are into Intelligence, man. They love these super secret sneaky programs to Protect American Security. Think about it: these guys, under the National Security Act, hear about de jure illegal covert ops all the time. They revel in that crap. It's the Judiciary types, Specter, Graham, Leahy, etc., who would be far more skeptical of secret spy ops touching on the statutory and Constitutional rights of Americans' on domestic soil. So maybe that's why the Dems who are "in the know" haven't raised a stink: they don't know any better.

(Yes, I realize there's some overlap on the committees -- so depending on who was briefed, my second point might be diminished. Has someone parsed that newly declassified briefing list to determine if any Judiciary members were briefed prior to December 2005? Maybe I will when a get a few extra minutes.)

Anyway, my two cents.

[Ediana]

"The Department of Justice says it secretly sought phone records and other documents of 3,501 people last year under a provision of the Patriot Act that does not require judicial oversight."

52 tons of cocaine, enough to poison 37 million people.

[cathyf]

Why it is that folks briefed on the program don't seem to object to it with any real enthusiasm remains a mystery. To some.

Here's a theory: the NSA is wiretapping virtually every international phone call where neither end is in the US. All of the outrage over "domestic wiretapping" and the administration's tepid responses are about preventing that notion from occurring to the terrorists...

cathy :-)

[brenda taylor]

soooo wheres rockie mysteriously not available coindence or is he barred from hearing secret intelligence

[Pete]

I remain openly skeptic that this is a multi billion dollar boondoggle that increases the power that our government has, and does little to make us safer.

I hope I am wrong, and I hope that the Congress shows some spine and performs the oversight it is supposed to do.

[Pete]

Would you all be comfortable with this massive data collection under President Hillary?

[lurker]

While it's simply a collection of phone numbers (e.g., not massive), the answer is yes.

[lurker]

So how did this morning's hearing go?

[Pete]

Anything that we are spending Billions of dollars on has to be massive.

[Pete]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/05/nsas_multibillion_dollar_data.html

[noah]

Usual snark from the Dims. Wyden was particularly obnoxious.

Don't mind if they do the NSA surveillance program if Hilary is prez. However her political opponents need to worry about their FBI files being shipped to the WH for safekeeping. Because there is a history there you know.

[lurker]

The database alone? Well, the bridge to nowhere both in LA and Alaska, combined, surely has to cost far more that the implementation of a data base, which has far more use for detecting pending terrorist attacks against our country and its allies.

[maryrose]

Isn't Wyden also on the ropes as a possible leaker to NYT about the NSA program?

[Pete]

As someone who deals with computers and data, I am not convinced that the database will protect us against a pending terrorist attack. I view this data mining in the same league as the "three very important security questions" that we were asked pre 9/11 before we boarded planes - a waste of time for the lawful and does not deter the unlawful.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong as I view this project as yet another boondoggle.

[Ediana]

They blew up a drug agent in Afghanistan. 'Rammed.'

[Sue]

I imagine they are just slipping some money from the Area 51 project over to the data mining project.

[Syl]

Wonderland

It's the Judiciary types, Specter, Graham, Leahy, etc., who would be far more skeptical of secret spy ops touching on the statutory and Constitutional rights of Americans' on domestic soil.

You think they're lookin' out for the little guy? I think maybe they're lookin' out for themselves. This involves more than 'rights of Americans' it involves separation of powers and these Senators just love their turf.

[Cecil Turner]

As someone who deals with computers and data, I am not convinced that the database will protect us against a pending terrorist attack.

I sure hope you're kidding with this. If not, howzabout briefing the rest of us on the details of the data and how we're using it to pinpoint nodes of terror activity.

[Pete]

I am not convinced that massive data mining will provide us with much useful information, since it can be easily circumvented by use of pay phones, disposable cell phones, etc. If there is indication that massive data mining will protect us from the next terrorist attack, I have not seen it. I think that the onus is on the government to provide summary information on how useful this program is, and what the cost of this program is.

[Cecil Turner]

Good plan. Why don't we put a little guide in there for how honest citizens can avoid being caught up in all that as well? We could probably do the same for all our other top secret communications intercept programs and allay everyone's fears. And then we could all vote on which ones to keep.

[The Unbeliever]

Favorite line from the "wider briefings" NYT article, admittedly taken out of context:

"Congress should be an ally in the war on terror, not an adversary." [said Senator Olympia Snowe]

Really! You don't say. If only the rest of Congress felt the same. But hey, forgive and forget; if Congress is willing to apologize and re-join the fight on the correct side, I won't hold the past couple of years against them.

[ordi]

maryrose,

Isn't Wyden also on the ropes as a possible leaker to NYT about the NSA program?

I am fairly sure he is not but I know he is a "probable" leaker of the secret spy satellite.

[The Unbeliever]

Why it is that folks briefed on the program don't seem to object to it with any real enthusiasm remains a mystery.

My theory goes something like this:

Random hysterical Senator: What's with these NSA wiretaps?!? Don't you know you're breaking the law, trampling civil rights, spitting on the 4th Amendment, and causing ulcers in leading DNP donors?!? What possible justification could you have for doing such a thing!

Harried NSA briefer: We intercepted a call concerning a plot to bomb the Capitol while both Houses were in session, and "neutralized" the terrorists responsible.

Random hysterical Senator: ...oh. Well then, carry on.

Fin

[Syl]

Pete

I am not convinced that massive data mining will provide us with much useful information, since it can be easily circumvented by use of pay phones, disposable cell phones, etc.

Please shout it from the rooftop! Then the terrorists will start using other means of communication which haven't yet been leaked about.

:)

[cathyf]

since it can be easily circumvented by use of pay phones, disposable cell phones, etc.

Sure, and now they know that they need to do that because they read it in the NYT. People are lazy, and don't understand security threats intuitively, so they'll refuse to take obvious security measures unless they get their noses rubbed directly in it. I work with otherwise smart people who refuse to use sftp rather than ftp. Even though it's just as easy (just check off the "sftp" box rather than the "ftp" box in the FileZilla). Because they can't themselves break in they think nobody else can either.

cathy :-)

[ordi]

TM,

Here is a link to the list that chronicles the 30 occasions when lawmakers were briefed about the program.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005220.htm

Per Michelle's post:

The breakdown of pols and number of briefings since October 2001:

SENATE

Intelligence Committee members:

The current chairman, Pat Roberts, R-Kan: 10.
The top Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia: eight.
A former chairman, now-retired Bob Graham, D-Fla.: four.
A former chairman, Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: four.
Mike DeWine, R-Ohio: two.
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah: two.
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. two.
Carl Levin, D-Mich.: two.
Kit Bond, R-Mo.: two.

Other senators:

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.: two.
Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: two.
Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska: one.
Top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii: one.
A former minority leader, now-retired Tom Daschle, D-S.D.: one.

HOUSE

Intelligence Committee members:

The top Democrat, Jane Harman of California: eight.
A former chairman, now-retired Porter Goss, R-Fla.: seven.
The current chairman, Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.: seven.
Heather Wilson. R-N.M.: three.
John McHugh, R-N.Y.: two.
Mike Rogers, R-Mich.: two.
Mac Thornberry, R-Texas: two.
Rush Holt, D-N.J.: two.
Anna Eshoo, D-Calif.: two.
Jo Ann Davis, R-Va.: one.
Bud Cramer, D-Ala.: one.
Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa: one.

Other representatives:

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.: six.
Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: three.
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee's defense panel, Bill Young, R-Fla.: two.
The defense panel's top Democrat, John Murtha of Pennsylvania: two.
Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas: one.

[Lurker]

I also deal with computers and massive amount of data on a daily basis. It's easy to import and export data and write SQL queries to find the match based on the incoming to a terrorist or outgoing call generated by a terrorist.

No biggie. All this will do is to find a match to track down our AQ affiliates that are here in USA.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

I am not convinced that massive data mining will provide us with much useful information, since it can be easily circumvented by use of pay phones, disposable cell phones, etc.

The data mining may or may not have any impact on preventing another attack, but it definitely has utility in the analysis and followup investigation after another attack. It's like unraveling a sweater. Once you've got the identity of one actor, then you can trace through the connections to other actors.

Certainly there is a chance that pay phones could interfere, but they can also provide additional sources of information as most people using pay phones don't wander around with bags of quarters. They use the pre-paid phone cards, and past experience shows that terrorists can be tracked from the analysis of these types of cards.

Sure there are a multitude of ways to avoid, or at least try to avoid, detection and tracking. Even two tin cans and some string would do it. But utility, convenience and ubiquity generally restricts modes of communication to those that are accessible by the NSA and other intelligence agencies.

And frankly, as you should know if you're dealing with data on a regular basis, you cannot analyse what you do not have. And if you do not have the data to begin with, then you've got nothing at all.

[Neo]

I woke from a nap and watched the hearing coverage on PBS.

With a few exceptions, it looked like a lovefest, even with most of the Democrats. The talking heads on PBS were glowing too.

I was beginning to believe that I had awaken in an alternate universe.

I waa left vondering if General Hayden had files on all the stooges.

[kim]

I wonder what Holt, Eshoo, Cramer and Boswell have to say about this. These are the lesser known House Democrats who've received briefings.
===================================

[kim]

Well, dayum, there is a Teshoo commenting over at ew who thinks Judy's interview about Clarke's warning of 9/11 was her crapping on the Hayden nomination, the man charged with listening to al-Qaeda. What is representative Eshoo's first name?
=====================================

[kim]

Well, it is Anna. But she is Dem whip.

Hm. Probably not her, but who needs the risk of being an anonymous source for a reporter, when you can anonymously leak stuff yourself, on a blog.

Then, again, there are those pesky traces in the twinkling electromagnetosphere.
=============================