By nominating Michael Hayden, the former chief of the National Security Agency (the US government's super-secret eavesdropping outfit), to replace Porter Goss as CIA director, Bush is waving a red cape in front of his critics and daring them to charge.
Hayden, who is now the deputy director of national intelligence (the number two man in the office overseeing the entire US intelligence community), ran the NSA when Bush authorized domestic warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and residents. When news of this programme broke last year, a firestorm of controversy ensued. In the United States, government investigators working on an intelligence case generally have to obtain a court order (from a secret court) in order to intercept a person's phone calls or emails within the United States. The Bush administration revealed little about this programme, but apparently it targeted communications between persons in America and those in other countries and presumably these communications involved al Qaeda suspects.
Upon learning of the programme - from a story in The New York Times - Democrats and Republicans voiced concern or outright criticism. Initially, the Bush White House was defensive - but then it fought back hard. It accused its critics of being opposed to a "terrorist surveillance programme", ignoring the nuanced point that these critics favoured surveillance programmes as long as they abided by existing laws. Vice President Dick Cheney, in particularly, was demagogic on this point, claiming that the critics supported al-Qaeda's ability to communicate within the United States. In the face of the administration's fierce counterattack, many members of Congress backed off.
Hayden was one of the most ardent defenders of the programme, though he eschewed the rhetorical excesses that Cheney deployed. In appearances before Congress, Hayden argued that it was necessary to resort to warrantless eavesdropping because US officials pursuing terrorist suspects would otherwise lose precious time filling out the paperwork for wiretap requests. But the law already allowed US investigators to obtain a wiretap without a warrant in emergencies - as long as they filed a request (within three days) with the court overseeing wiretaps. Hayden's misleading explanation prompted speculation that the programme went further than the media reports indicated. Months later, the full shape of the programme Hayden oversaw remains unknown to the public.
What is clear is that the White House has concluded that the exposure of its warrantless wiretap programme was not a political liability but a potential asset. Bush aides decided that they could sell the programme as a demonstration of Bush's commitment to protecting Americans from terrorists. They maintained it was legal and derided those who raised civil liberties issues as being more concerned with the rights of the evildoers than the safety of the United States. At a time when the American public has turned against Bush and his war, this was the sort of debate the White House much desired.
With the Hayden nomination, Bush is saying, "Bring 'em on." The White House can expect members of the Senate, which has to confirm Hayden before he can serve, to revive their complaints about the warrantless wiretapping programme, and then the White House can respond with its favorite line: Bush cares so much about safeguarding America from the terrorists that, yes, he will not hesitate to adopt the most serious measures.
Just wait.
Good point. Though I wonder if the questions regarding his continuing active service is more of a shot at the DoD in general. If so, I don't think it'd get anywhere.
