Doesn’t anybody find it interesting that somehow, the topic of discussion on all of the Sunday political chat shows was about opinions about the “likely” pick to head the CIA —a guy who hasn’t been nominated, or mentioned by anyone in any official capacity— rather than, Oh I dunno, talking about WHY PORTER GOSS SUDDENLY QUIT IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Is there any question that this masterful bit of leaked misdirection completely played up to the media’s “gotta get the scoop NOW” mentality, conveniently bumping some very INconvenient questions out of the news cycle?
Is anyone even paying attention?
Was anyone ever? Really? I’m starting to have my doubts. Have we ever, as a species, identified a problem before it got to us and solved it before it bagan killing us? Or do we always wait until we’re kneedeep in each other’s blood before we start patching things up?
To quote the Daily Show “LOOK! BUBBLES!”
Although the tv talking heads have been mislead there has been a number of in print and blogsphere speculations on the subject (pop over to truthout.org to see some of them). Some of it comes from a further deeper scandal involving one of his subordinates, the #3 guy at the CIA who’s evidently been running poker parties with hookers over at (drumroll…) The Watergate Hotel… for various folks including possibly members of congress, and links to the Cunningham resignation/criminal charges.
Huh? I’m sorry, were you saying something?
Y’know, I’m starting to wonder if the media are afraid of harrassment — in the “no-fly list” sort of way.
Not that such an upstanging administration would do such a thing, of course — but critical journalists on a terror watchlist. Perish the thought.
I think they’ve been cowed somehow.
I’m also curious if there is or was corporate mandates killing stories at the editorial level, and everyone’s just given up.
Why does this administration and the events its involved in get a pass on very basic “5 Ws” type journalism questions?
CU
Right….I wrote about that on Friday (this post was a follow-up).
Oops, my apology, I missed the original post. Fridays and the weekends tend to backlog me and I’m still reading my way back thru my friends list.
I really wonder if I would be happier if I just stopped paying attention.
President Bush nominated General Michael Hayden to replace Porter
Goss. Hayden is the Deputy Director of National Intelligence and the
former director of the National Security Agency. Its expected Hayden
would face a contentious confirmation process over the administrations
domestic spying program, which is run by the NSA. This is General
Hayden speaking at a rare news conference in January, defending the
spy program. He was questioned by Knight Ridder reporter, Jonathan
Landay.
JONATHAN LANDAY: My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment to 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.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: No, actually, the Fourth Amendment actually
protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. Thats
what it says.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
MICHAEL HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and
seizure.
JONATHAN LANDAY: But does it not say probable
MICHAEL HAYDEN: No.
JONATHAN LANDAY: The court standard, the legal standard —
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’ve 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 probable cause. Could
you respond to that, please?
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 is 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. And so, what youve raised to me,
and I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to become one, but what you’ve
raised to me, 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.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Michael Hayden speaking in January. For the
record, the Fourth Amendment says, “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
warrant 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.”