The Impeachment Clock

One of the favorite arguments of those who defend the criminal actions of President Bush is that the President of the United States can't violate the laws of the United States because they don't apply to him in his role as Commander in Chief. There is no truth to this argument, but that doesn't affect its popularity. Every day that the Congress lets this violation stand gives the President reason to believe that he can go on violating the laws of the land.

It even emboldens him to do things like appointing the architect of illegal NSA spying in violation of the FISA, Gen. Michael Hayden, to the position of Director of the CIA. Editor & Publisher on May 6, 2006 observes that Hayden, Likely Choice for CIA Chief, Displayed Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment at Press Club.

In an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on January 23, 2006, the following exchange occurred:

QUESTION: 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'd 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?

GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

But, there is good news in this article.

A new Gallup poll released Monday showed that 51% of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the U.S. without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program.

The National Press Club appearance wasn't the first time Hayden lied to protect the Administration's criminal conspiracy. I am reminded of this example of Hayden’s criminal behavior from ThinkProgress on December 19, 2005, FLASHBACK: Director of National Security Agency Misled Congress. When Hayden was NSA Director, he appeared on October 17, 2002 before a House committee chaired by then-Congressman Porter Goss.

GOSS: OK, my second question, then. General Hayden, you said something about bin Laden coming across the bridge, hypothetical, of course. But I take that to mean that if bin Laden did come there would be capabilities that we have that we can use elsewhere in the world that we cannot use in the United States of America. Is that correct?

HAYDEN: Not so much capabilities, but how agilely we could apply those capabilities. The person inside the United States becomes a U.S. person under the definition provided by the FISA Act.
…

GOSS: Well, lets — again, I don’t want to get into details. I’m aware of the public nature of this meeting. But let’s just suppose this sniper [in the United States] is somebody we wanted to catch very badly. Could we apply all our technologies and all our capabilities and all our know how against that person? Or would that person be considered to have protection as an American citizen?

HAYDEN: That person would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person. And I would have no authorities to pursue it.

We now know that Hayden was lying to protect the criminal activity he was engaged in at the direction of the President of the United States. I encourage the members of the Senate to fully investigate Hayden's perjury on October 17, 2002 and his further criminal activity at the NSA when he comes for confirmation to the CIA post. Maybe that will get the House to stop aiding and abetting Administration lawlessness.