Talk:Michael Hayden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

[edit] Narus ST-6400 and NarusInsight by Narus Ltd.

Under Gen. Michael V. Hayden the NSA has forced telecom companies to implement massive domestic spying hardware. Even though Gen. Hayden has said at the National Press Club that "As the director, I was the one responsible to ensure that this program was limited in its scope and disciplined in its application." The NarusInsight is one type of domestic spying hardware. Capable of monitoring of an OC-192 network line in realtime. For reference thats monitoring 39000 DSL lines in realtime for every piece of hardware. After data capture Narus softeware can replay data. What does this mean well according to Narus website "Capabilities include playback of streaming media (for example, VoIP), rendering of Web pages, examination of e-mails and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols." References: Narus Ltd http://narus.com, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB Transcript: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2006/intell-060123-dni01.htm www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564046/posts Hoover's company factsheet: http://www.hoovers.com/narus/--ID__60701--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml Report by bewert: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476 EFF case against AT&T http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ AbrahamLincoln24 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All contributions must comply with:
  1. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.
  2. Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
  3. Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. This leads to => How to figure out what is a reliable published source.
Is your contribution in compliance with the rules? Metarhyme 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

yes it meets all these rules. it has no unpublished data. It is very neutral. All fatcs in the post come from reliable references that I site. 69.107.100.9 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC) AbrahamLincoln24 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think more about the neutral point of view article: language like "forced" and "massive" is very weighted - I'd consider this POV.
In addition there's some material of questionable relevancy (this is not the right page for background material on surveillance hardware), and the text still has some has some very poor grammar & a non-encyclopedic language ("What does this mean well according to"), and the references are not correctly specified. Finally, some one these references may not be considered reliable enough to be considered references (eg a personal blog). That doesn't necessarily the material cannot be used, but if it is it must be qualified as such.
In general AbrahamLincoln24, if your edit gets reverted you should not simply try and re-add the material, instead raise it here on the discussion page. You've tried to add this material at least seven times to the article in the last two days: every time it has been reverted by various editors. Continually attemptting to add it back in is counter-productive - you'll get much further if you try and reach a consensus with other editors here on the discussion page first. I think there's some useful information here to contribute to the article, so lets try and tidy it up first and avoid revert wars in the meantime, ok? WhiteCat 06:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


What is your source for this statement: "Under Gen. Michael V. Hayden the NSA has forced telecom companies to implement massive domestic spying hardware." Who says that? Metarhyme 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Metarhyme On 17 OCT 2002 Gen. Hayden goes before the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence basicly to explain were was the NSA durring the Sept 11 acttacts. Durring his testomony he explains his stradegy "Another part of our strategy for nearly three years has been a shift to a greater reliance on American industry (telecom). We have been moving along this path steadily and we have the metrics to show it. As you know, in project GROUNDBREAKER we have already outsourced a significant portion of our information technology so that we can concentrate on mission. We have partnered with academia for our systems engineering. I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers(AT&T Verizon etc)." Under the CALEA law telecom companies are force to help the NSA. Reference http://intelligence.senate.gov/0210hrg/021017/hayden.pdf AbrahamLincoln24 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any problems for the post of narus relatting to Gen. Hayden. AbrahamLincoln24 05:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You do not provide a reference for your statement about CALEA, which involves G-men (FBI, DEA) rather than NSA. The EFF suit claims that NSA used no law when it asked the telcos for access and that the telcos unlawfully aided NSA when they granted access. If EFF is correct, your statement about CALEA is wrong - telcos and NSA were secretly breaking laws, not obeying the CALEA law which applies to domestic law enforcement.
Here's a full quote of section 27:
"27.Another part of our strategy for nearly three years has been a shift to a greater reliance on American industry. We have been moving along this path steadily and we have the metrics to show it. As you know, in project GROUNDBREAKER we have already outsourced a significant portion of our information technology so that we can concentrate on mission. We have partnered with academia for our systems engineering. I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers. (One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen). Three weeks ago we awarded a contract for nearly $300 million to a private firm to develop TRAILBLAZER, our effort to revolutionize how we produce SIGINT in a digital age. And last week we cemented a deal with another corporate giant to jointly develop a system to mine data that helps us learn about our targets. In terms of "buy vs. make" (the term Congress has used), we spent about a third of our SIGINT development money this year making things ourselves. Next year the number will be 17%."
Here's Hayden's reasoning in section 40:
"40.In the context of NSA's mission, where do we draw the line between the government's need for CT information about people in the United States and the privacy interests of people located in the United States? Practically speaking, this line-drawing affects the focus of NSA's activities (foreign versus domestic), the standard under which surveillances are conducted (probable cause versus reasonable suspicion, for example), the type of data NSA is permitted to collect and how, and the rules under which NSA retains and disseminates information about U.S. persons."
CT stands for Counter Terrorism. A couple of problems with your wanting to put operational details of this highly classified program into the article are: 1. it's Original Research and 2. it breaks laws about not blabbing secrets. Metarhyme 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Matarhyme lets try to keep this Civil. Please don't show bias by accussing me of breaking laws and blabbing secrets. As a 29yrd US vetern who had some type of secret cleance know better than most what is secret and what is not. 1.Anything you can find in public record or on a corparate website is not clisified. 2. Maby the word "forced" is to strong of a word I will bend and put "worked with" in my post. 3. This post is totaly relevent because Gen. Hayden has said this program is one of his greatest acomplishments. He has also said "I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers(AT&T Verizon etc)." 4. My statement CALEA is not wrong. I think tou should read the CALEA law. CALEA law SEC. 102 part (5) "The term `government' means the government of the United States and any agency or instrumentality thereof, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any State or political subdivision thereof authorized by law to conduct electronic surveillance." Please lets keep this CIVIL. http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html 69.107.100.9 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)AbrahamLincoln24 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The objective is to get your contribution into the article. Agreed? If people don't see problems it won't be reverted. You dislike my proposal. How about putting your counterproposal below it? Metarhyme 16:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

Under Gen. Michael V. Hayden the NSA started instituting a database of unprecedented size, according to his testimony on October 17, 2002 before the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence: "One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen." Hayden Statement to Congress - see section 27 Civil Rights groups have challenged the legality of the information collection (for example see EFF class action suit) and questioned Hayden's honesty in stating that the Program "is not a driftnet" and "is targeted and focused." General Hayden's address to the National Press Club on January 23, 2006
(I found that the Director of National Intelligence website has removed its link to the press release)

Metarhyme 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hayden's remark indicates that NSA's database was projected to be considerably larger than AT&T's 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information -- one of the largest databases in the world. Rather than focusing on hardware, it might be better to look at the size of the repository. It could be used to spy on a handful of terrorists or it could be used to spy on anybody. Metarhyme 17:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Metarhyme thank you for working with me. I want to stick with my post. This is what Im trying to convey in my post. I want to give scope and size to Gen. Hayden biggest acomplishment. Using the example of the NarusInsight is one way to do this. I dont want to use any phrase like "questioned his honesty" beacuse he ether miss statted somthing or he did not. AbrahamLincoln24 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On 17 OCT 2002 Gen. Hayden went before the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence to explain where the NSA was during the Sept 11 attacks. He testified, "Another part of our strategy for nearly three years has been a shift to a greater reliance on American industry. We have been moving along this path steadily and we have the metrics to show it. As you know, in project GROUNDBREAKER we have already outsourced a significant portion of our information technology so that we can concentrate on mission. We have partnered with academia for our systems engineering. I have met personally with prominent corporate executive officers." Hayden Statement to Congress - see section 27 Under the CALEA law telecom companies are forced to help the NSA. askCALEA

I cleaned it up - does that suit you? Metarhyme 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Metarhyme please help me combine these 2 post and I think we have a winner. Also correction to grammer would help. AbrahamLincoln24 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK - give me a few minutes. Metarhyme 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Narus ST-6400 and NarusInsight by Narus Ltd. Under Gen. Michael V. Hayden the NSA has worked with telecom companies to implement massive domestic spying hardware. Even though Gen. Hayden has said at the National Press Club that "As the director, I was the one responsible to ensure that this program was limited in its scope and disciplined in its application." The NarusInsight is one type of domestic spying hardware. Capable of monitoring of an OC-192 network line in realtime. For reference thats monitoring 39,000 DSL lines in realtime for every piece of hardware. After data capture Narus softeware can replay data. According to Narus website replay data definition is "Capabilities include playback of streaming media (for example, VoIP), rendering of Web pages, examination of e-mails and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols." References: Narus Ltd http://narus.com, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB Transcript: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2006/intell-060123-dni01.htm www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564046/posts Hoover's company factsheet: http://www.hoovers.com/narus/--ID__60701--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml EFF case against AT&T http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/ http://www.askcalea.net/calea.html

Here's my try at NPOV combo:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation alleges that under Gen. Michael V. Hayden the NSA has worked with telecom companies to implement massive domestic spying hardware. EFF class action suit Although Gen. Hayden said at the National Press Club that "As the director, I was the one responsible to ensure that this program was limited in its scope and disciplined in its application," [2] his testimony that, "One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen," (Hayden Statement to Congress - see section 27 before the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence) indicates that NSA's database was projected to be considerably larger than AT&T's 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information. The NarusInsight is one type of spying hardware, capable of monitoring of an OC-192 network line in realtime. After data capture, according to Narus, its software can replay, "streaming media (for example, VoIP), rendering of Web pages, examination of e-mails and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols." Narus Ltd Narus NSA would need to use these or more powerful switches for data collection.

Metarhyme 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost there heres mine... AbrahamLincoln24 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Perposed titled Gen. Michael V. Hayden strategy for the NSA

Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the NSA have a strategy to shift greater reliance on American industry for the perposes of domestic spying. [Gen. Hayden Statement to Congress - see section 27, EFF class action suit Although Gen. Hayden said at the National Press Club that "As the director, I was the one responsible to ensure that this program was limited in its scope and disciplined in its application," [3] his testimony that, "One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen" Gen. Hayden Statement to Congress - see section 27 before the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence) indicates that NSA's database was projected to be considerably larger than AT&T's 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information. The NarusInsight is one type of spying hardware, capable of monitoring of an OC-192 network line in realtime (39,000 DSL lines). After data capture, according to Narus, its software can replay, "streaming media (for example, VoIP), rendering of Web pages, examination of e-mails and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols." Narus Ltd Narus AbrahamLincoln24 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
General Hayden hasn't stated that he's implemented massive domestic spying. EFF has accused AT&T of working with the NSA to do that. The, "Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the NSA have worked with telecom companies to implement massive domestic spying hardware," statement has to be made accurate. It's not good enough that you say that, nor can Wikipedia be made to say that. It needs a mouth - whose mouth? Since EFF said that, I proposed them. Try to correct that first sentence below your section title: Metarhyme 20:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Metarhyme I will delete the sentence and replace it with "Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the NSA have a stradegy to shift greater reliance on American industry for the purpose of domestic spying." AbrahamLincoln24 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that Hayden shifted NSA from making stuff to buying stuff. He said that. He never said "for the purpose of domestic spying" however. That's you again. Let me start you out: Metarhyme 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gen. Michael V. Hayden strategy for the NSA

Metarhyme I think I been a sport and bent over backwards. I've taken out the word "massive", even though installing hardware like NarusInsight at evry telecom company is by definition massive. I've taken out the word "forced", even though CALEA law proves it. I've taken out miss statements that Gen. Hayden has said about the domestic spy program and he has made alot. I have also proved alot of your statements wrong (the NSA cant use CALEA etc). Your last statement is worng to. The NSA is not buying anything unless your implying that American telecoms are makeing monney off the NSA. By definition using the NarusInsight on American soil is domestic spying. Lets call domestic spying, domestic spying. Dont get me wrong I think your imput has made this post better. AbrahamLincoln24 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Do you agaree if not explain. AbrahamLincoln24 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm also disinterested in continuing, you might as well see what happens. Metarhyme 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

==Purposed additioin too Gen. Michael V. Hayden strategy for the NSA== AbrahamLincoln24 06:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I want to add this to the last line "This same technology is used by the chinnies government to spy and censor on its people." http://narus.com/press/news/index.html AbrahamLincoln24 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai telecom is thinking about buying it. That's a little bit different than having it and using it, and not exactly the same as the Chinese government. You are fibbing to push your point of view. Both things are against the rules. Metarhyme 18:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Metarhyme AbrahamLincoln24 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I was not speaking about the narus in that sentence. I just trying to make the point that the chinies buy simmiller technology to spy and censor its people. Mainly refering to cisco routers. The only difference is that the narus is 3 generations more advanced mainly because it inspects internet trafic at a deep level. My company does some buisness in China and let me tell you that Shanghai telecom is a subsidiary of China Telecom witch is owned by the Chinese government. http://www.businessweek.com/it100/2005/company/CHA.htm
OK, China Telecom is government owned. How about saying that the Chinese government uses more primitive technology for surveillance, and is planning to get the three generations more advanced Narus equipment? Use the Narus reference. Metarhyme 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Im I wrong if so please explain. AbrahamLincoln24 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this - " The China Telecom uses this same type of technology to spy and censor its people in a more primitive way. China telecom has started the process to acquire this technology logistically and financially. Shanghai Telecom seeks system " AbrahamLincoln24 03:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Super. Stick it in, if you approve of the reference I found for it. Metarhyme 04:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AbrahamLincoln24 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I will add it. Also I have found more information on Gen. Haydens intel stradagy. It has to do with some dod and military doctrines. Those doctrines outline bringing war to the net. The doctrines are called "Fight the net" and "Information Operations Roadmap". Scary stuff. Some examples are using PSYOP in the US and international media to desive and miss direct our enemys, even though US public may be desived too. AbrahamLincoln24 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Say it exactly. Provide a reference for exactly what you say. Then put it in that way. Metarhyme 01:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the NSA have a strategy to shift greater reliance on American industry for the purposes of domestic spying (see Gen. Hayden Statement to Congress - see section 27), EFF class action suit Although Gen. Hayden said at the National Press Club that "As the director, I was the one responsible to ensure that this program was limited in its scope and disciplined in its application" [4], his testimony that, "One senior executive confided that the data management needs we outlined to him were larger than any he had previously seen" Gen. Hayden Statement to Congress - see section 27 before the Joint Inquiry of the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence) indicates that NSA's database was projected to be considerably larger than AT&T's 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information. The NarusInsight is one type of spying hardware, capable of monitoring of an OC-192 network line in realtime (39,000 DSL lines). After data capture, according to Narus, its software can replay, "streaming media (for example, VoIP), rendering of Web pages, examination of e-mails and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols" This same technology is used by the chinese government to spy on its people. (see [[5]]). AbrahamLincoln24 06:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AbrahamLincoln24 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I want to add this line to above text. "The NarusInsight is one type of spying hardware, capable of monitoring of an OC-192 network line in realtime (39,000 DSL lines)or give AT&T the power to monitor all 7,432,000 DSL lines it owns.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[1]

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)

[edit] 4th Amendment

It's true that this article is not the place for an extended discussion of the warrantless wiretapping controversy. But the controversy at the Press Club--which, again, was what first brought Hayden to public prominence--was not about the administration's policy, but about whether or not Hayden knew what was in the 4th Amendment.

I have rethought my position that the Kerr quote doesn't belong in the article--I now think it does. The response from Hayden's supporters is that he was talking about what was relevant in the 4th Amendment, not what was actually in the 4th Amendment. I don't personally buy that, but I don't have to buy it--that is the response and it therefore deserves to be in the article. The article should not take sides on which side is right, but present the opposing views.

What should not be in this article is a debate over whether the administration's position on warrantless wiretapping is valid or not--there's a very lengthy article rehearsing the views pro and con on that. Nareek 00:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam Service?

Hello. This page reads pretty good. I'm just interested in this man's military career. The article simply says "Hayden entered active military service in 1969." Being the period of high US involvement in Vietnam, I wonder if anyone here can add something about how/why he received his Bronze Star. Thank you. 210.20.86.85 05:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May I say...

May I just say that you have done a great job of keeping this article fair.

I am someone who defends "warrantless surveillance" and I see no way else to spell it out. It is what it is. "domestic spying" on the other hand seems to imply that Americans were being targeted. While this could be debated, its not a fact.

Good job. I only home my contributions are as diligent as yours.

--Oxcart12 02:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nervous tick on charlie rose.....

(Removed comment not related to editing the main article. This is not a blog. Edison (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Irish-American

Well, but Hayden is a German surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.186.41 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)