Former NSA Director Jokes About Putting Snowden On A 'Kill List,' Says He 'Hopes' NSA Is Involved In Targeted Killings
from the Elmer-FUD-declares-it-'HUMAN-SEASON' dept
Former NSA director Michael Hayden may be a sociopath. Actually, his behavior (and the NSA in general) is slightly more aligned with Antisocial Personality Disorder, defined as such:
Antisocial personality disorder is a mental health condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal.So far, compliant courts, lax and compliant oversight and secret interpretations of the law have made sure Hayden's actions never strayed into "criminal" territory during his tenure at the NSA. Now that he's no longer in charge (but still relevant!), his mouth is running overtime.
In a panel discussion about cybersecurity hosted by the Washington Post, Hayden attempted to make a lighthearted joke about killing someone.
Hayden noted that Snowden has been nominated for a European human rights award.This list would be the one where the government decides you need to die. Just a little dark humor, certainly not completely inappropriate, given Hayden's limited powers as the former head of the NSA. Of course, the head of the House Intelligence Committee couldn't help but chime in and make it totally inappropriate.
"I must admit, in my darker moment over the past several months, I'd also thought of nominating Mr. Snowden, but it was for a different list"
The audience laughed, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was also on the panel, responded, "I can help you with that."Hilarity ensued, as they say. Yes, Mike Rogers, the man who has transformed himself into Chief Flack and Shill for the NSA during his tenure as the head of House Intelligence Committee, had to try and top it, and now comes out looking even more venal and misanthropic than usual.
Hayden followed up this "punchline" to offer even more approval of government-ordained killing.
Michael Hayden, a former director of the National Security Agency, defended the government's use of targeted killings on Thursday.Fantastic. Hayden pointed out that the US government doesn't do assassinations (let's see what Greenwald's investigation turns up, shall we?), but is perfectly entitled to do "targeted killings" because the nation is "at war." Interesting justification, seeing as the nation has been "at war" with both drugs and terrorism for years now, which means that targeted killings have been and will continue to be "fully justified" for as long as those "battles" rage. These "wars" have already been used to excuse all sorts of behavior US citizens object to, like mass domestic surveillance and inland "border" checkpoints.
"Yes, we do targeted killings, and I certainly hope they make full use of the capacities of the National Security Agency when we do that..."
Hayden made the comment in response to a question from the audience about an investigation by journalists Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill into the NSA's alleged role in assassinations.
As for "targeted," the bodies of dozens of civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan would beg to differ. Except they can't.
So, while the leaks keep leaking on and documents keep being pried from the grasp of government agencies by non-governmental agencies actually interested in protecting Americans' rights, the justifications are wearing thinner and thinner.
And if Hayden's statements are indicative of the mindset of those in the upper echelon of US intelligence, it's more than simply chilling. It's horrifying.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ed snowden, michael hayden, mike rogers, nsa, nsa surveillance, targeted killing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
1) There is still the sham of electing a head of government
2) There is no Death Star
3) The President doesn't have magical powers
4) The army isn't made up of clones
...and that's about it. Both are now autocratic regimes, both have extremely influential people who think nothing of the government assassinating people, and any and all critics expect to have a bad day when meeting law enforcement officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: palpatine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But smaller than a small moon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about that for some dark humor? Should I expect the NSA knocking on my door "because terrorism"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Ninja on Oct 3rd, 2013 @ 10:41am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Ninja on Oct 3rd, 2013 @ 10:41am
Further, this exchange would be granted quite a lot of power without any real oversight. There would be nothing to stop it from being used as a political tool by the wealthy to eliminate any rivals they have. In the proposed system, wealth would actually wield an even greater influence over politics than it does Today.
Finally, the system works from the assumption that assassination plots would be overwhelmingly successful. A more likely occurrence would be the expansion of organizations dedicated to protecting political persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Ninja on Oct 3rd, 2013 @ 10:41am
(Also known as the Wheel of Time's "Daes Dae'mar, the Game of Houses, although it sounds more like a Klingon version!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because the diagnostic handbook is based more on symptoms and behavior rather than the underlying or organic disease, sociopathy isn't even in there, its just too hard to diagnose if the person isn't actively doing anti-social stuff like killing and torturing animals (callously firing employees and raiding their pension fund is *expected* of CEOs, on the other hand). Instead, they have only the symptomatic version of it as "Antisocial Personality Disorder"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
dog damn this makes me sick: our "leaders", our "best and brightest", our moral "superiors" joke about MURDERING the ONLY PEOPLE WITH HONOR in this whole clusterfuck, with nary a HINT of 'due process'...
don't the puppetmasters understand: you have BROKEN the social compact, *NOW* you are constantly rubbing our noses in the fact that there is no LEGAL COMPACT any longer... which means NOT ONLY are the power elite allowed to ignore any/all laws they find inconvenient; now WE CAN TOO ! ! !
don't they consider that it will not end well for the 1% when the 99% turn the tables on them ? ? ?
its official: all deals are off, and the only law is the 'law of the jungle'; when the sheeple act on that, it will be an 'oh shit' moment for our puppetmasters...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q: "Does the United States conduct assassinations?"
Michael Hayden: "No, of course not. We conduct targeted killings."
Q: "So, the federal government conducts targeted killings?"
Michael Hayden: "No, who told you that?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not because of your media touted "freedom" or "American dream", you are simply the cesspool of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure if the tough decisions of war were left to lily-livered, Nancyboys like you- Bin Laden would be relaxing on his porch, smoking his hookah and plotting to kill more innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
bin Laden, I can excuse, since all the evidence I've seen points to him being behind 9/11. Sure, send SEALS after him.
However, there have been killings of US citizens. One of them was a SIXTEEN YEAR OLD boy, who was unarmed and not a threat to anyone around him.
The problem that is obvious to everyone but you is that a government that feels it can just up and kill someone is a terrifying entity, since what's to stop it from killing you because it believes you're a terrorist? Even if you're not, their intel is wrong, well, you're still dead. You can't fix that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The SEALs had to sneak into Pakistan, an allegedly friendly nation, kill Bin Laden, and get back out again, without letting our good buddies know about it.
Wanna know why?
Pakistan, an allegedly friendly nation, had been SHELTERING bin Laden for years.
So how the hell do you comply with international law in that situation? Enquiring minds want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ummm.... maybe by complying with international law?
Although I'm thinking that what you're really asking is "how can the US do whatever it wants, wherever it wants, whenever it wants, while complying with international law?" The answer to that is it can't. And that's a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Osama bin Laden
Fantastic. Hayden pointed out that the US government doesn't do assassinations (let's see what Greenwald's investigation turns up, shall we?), but is perfectly entitled to do "targeted killings" because the nation is "at war."
I'm pretty sure if the tough decisions of war were left to lily-livered, Nancyboys like you- Bin Laden would be relaxing on his porch, smoking his hookah and plotting to kill more innocent people.
Hmmm....who got bin Laden killed? Wasn't it Obama? Surely not Bush. Thus, Bush & Co. must be lily-liveried Nancyboys. Not a nice way to speak of an ex-president, even if it is true.
On another note, I suspect the ghost of Osama bin Laden loves Michael Hayden, who embodies proof that America has lost its moral compass since the 9/11 attacks. The NSA overreaches can destroy democracy much more effectively than al Qaeda ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Osama bin Laden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Osama bin Laden
The movie release date was June 8, 2001, and August 17 in Brazil. I saw the movie in the weekend before the september 11th attacks.
So, if friggin Hollywood was already declaring him more or less a fair game, you can bet the CIA was already trying to kill Bin Laden way before, back on the Clinton administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death penalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Death penalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Death penalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, why be a good lad and run off to visualize world peace or go sing Kum-Bah-Yah with your fellow effeminate communist social engineers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with pacifists like you is that you cannot admit the world is an ugly place and sometimes killing a person is the best solution.
Did anyone argue otherwise? Doesn't seem like it. Good luck with your strawmen.
But, bigger question: who gets to decide? Do you think it's okay to assume that Hayden and Rogers get to decide to put Snowden on a targeted killing list?
What about you? You seem like a perfectly despicable human being. You've admitted that the world is an ugly place -- and your comments perfectly capture that point. How would you feel if I decided that you should be on the "targeted kill list"? It seems like it would make the world a better place, so let's do that, shall we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except it was a joke. Does anyone other than you and the idiot who wrote the article it was anything other than a tasteless joke? I don't recall any announcements about putting people on that list. And I'm pretty sure many of the people who caught a Hellfire missle in their rearview mirror didn't get a public announcement.
What about you? You seem like a perfectly despicable human being. You've admitted that the world is an ugly place -- and your comments perfectly capture that point. How would you feel if I decided that you should be on the "targeted kill list"? It seems like it would make the world a better place, so let's do that, shall we?
Well, I'm not a terrorist and if I knew any- I wouldn't be hanging out with them smoking hashish and eating goat stew at the corner cafe. Nor would I drive in their cars with them. You can snivel all you want and wring your hands but most of the guys who are targeted are targeted for good reason. Don't worry, Snowden is not on it and will never be.... no matter what Techdirt's Chicken Little leads you to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, right. We've seen how good the (current) administration is at "targeting", moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
According to this administration, perhaps. But what about the next one? Thing is, when the President gets to decide who is and who is not a terrorist... you might not think you're one until they decide you are.
I wouldn't be hanging out with them smoking hashish and eating goat stew at the corner cafe.
Talk about a clueless, ignorant, racist asshole... holy fuck.
You can snivel all you want and wring your hands but most of the guys who are targeted are targeted for good reason
Says you. But, again, just wait until someone in power thinks you should be on that list. Your blind patriotism is kind of funny. Shouldn't you support things guaranteed by the Constitution like due process? Or is that too un-American for a die-hard asshole like yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to this administration, perhaps. But what about the next one? Thing is, when the President gets to decide who is and who is not a terrorist... you might not think you're one until they decide you are.
I've never done anything that anyone could ever make a credible case to declare me a terrorist.
"I wouldn't be hanging out with them smoking hashish and eating goat stew at the corner cafe."
Talk about a clueless, ignorant, racist asshole... holy fuck.
Would you say the same thing if I talked about the French drinking red wine and smoking Gauloises cigarettes? Or Germans eating bratwurst and drinking beer? Have you ever been in that part of the world? I have.
"You can snivel all you want and wring your hands but most of the guys who are targeted are targeted for good reason"
Says you. But, again, just wait until someone in power thinks you should be on that list. Your blind patriotism is kind of funny. Shouldn't you support things guaranteed by the Constitution like due process? Or is that too un-American for a die-hard asshole like yourself?
Enemy combatants on foreign soil are a different matter entirely. It's hard for me to believe you'd defend a piece of human garbage like al-Awaki with the 4th Amendment. It doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If said in the same context as your comment was, then yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The argument isn't about enemy combatants. It's about civilian casualties. How many are acceptable in war? None. Period.
If you think that makes me a pacifist, I'd have to point out that I do exercise my 2nd Amendment rights quite often to dissuade others of that notion, as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let be clarify that, I think the US "government" (non-living entity) is at war with pretty much everyone else on this planet. In addition to this, they also have some sort of delusional disorder, most likely prosecutory delusion, mixed in with paranoia. And I am afraid to say that this is all resulted from the grandiose delusion that US have.
Yes, if US is a real entity, it's one really, really sick puppy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the U.S. only kills unimportant targets slowly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, about that 'trial'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden quite some time ago figured out this was a possibility and set up a deadman switch should harm come to him. I've been figuring some country that could benefit from his death would off him in hopes it would trigger the deadman switch.
Some time ago he put out all the data encrypted but without the encryption key. The encryption key is the deadman. He dies, it gets released and what we have been receiving from Greenwald becomes the least of the NSAs worries. Greenwald's articles are embarrassing for them but they aren't really releasing data that could get people killed. In an AMA on reddit they mentioned that all the data they are releasing for publication is going through the administration. Of course the administration doesn't want any of this out there but it is not like they don't have prior warning it's coming. According to Greenwald, sometimes they obey the request not to publish, sometimes they ignore it. But the key here is that if it could result in harm or death to someone, say like a secret agent or spy then it doesn't get published.
Releasing the deadman switch eliminates that protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strange, I don't remember being allowed to say things like that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought
Did he think he was off the record?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe we'll remind them of this, Pollyanna:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New best friends?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hit-list so the CIA can take you out.
Go ahead keep mocking Snowden, look what happened
to your friend Petraeus. Do you want to be in his situation?
You are a morally arrogant old man who will probably end up
like an alcoholic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]