(no subject)
It's sad that this doesn't surprise me.
Perhaps I should be surprised that Bush would choose a domestic spying fan to head an agency that can bring such civil rights violations further into practice. Of course, given his history it was pretty much inevitable that he'd choose this guy or at least someone with a similar position on the issue. Let's look at the record so far: He placed a torture apologist (Alberto Gonzalez) into the position of Attorney General. He placed a staunch unilateralist (Conoleeza Rice) into the position of head diplomat as Secretary of State. He placed a man who wants to either neuter or destroy the United Nations (John Bolton) into the position as our ambassador to that same body that he wants to eliminate. Given this abominable history of filling offices with the people who are most unsuitable for them, it doesn't really surprise me that he filled the office of CIA director with a man who has no problem with spying on people in the United States. The article seems to put a lot of emphasis on the fact that this is a military man being tapped to head a civilian agency, but while I would certainly prefer that he resign his commission before taking the job I can't say that this is tops on my list of concerns. After all, the CIA has been closely tied in with the military since it was the OSS back in World War II and continuing to appoint civilians to its lead position won't make it any different. I'm sure that most CIA directors (including George Bush Sr.) were former military men before taking on that position, and while they might not have been directly under the Department of Defense they still probably maintained a loyalty to it. My personal concern is that this will increase the amount of activity perpetrated by the CIA against Americans, as we have a CIA director who thinks that such violations of the Constitution are all fine and good as long as the President asks for them.
Perhaps I should be surprised that Bush would choose a domestic spying fan to head an agency that can bring such civil rights violations further into practice. Of course, given his history it was pretty much inevitable that he'd choose this guy or at least someone with a similar position on the issue. Let's look at the record so far: He placed a torture apologist (Alberto Gonzalez) into the position of Attorney General. He placed a staunch unilateralist (Conoleeza Rice) into the position of head diplomat as Secretary of State. He placed a man who wants to either neuter or destroy the United Nations (John Bolton) into the position as our ambassador to that same body that he wants to eliminate. Given this abominable history of filling offices with the people who are most unsuitable for them, it doesn't really surprise me that he filled the office of CIA director with a man who has no problem with spying on people in the United States. The article seems to put a lot of emphasis on the fact that this is a military man being tapped to head a civilian agency, but while I would certainly prefer that he resign his commission before taking the job I can't say that this is tops on my list of concerns. After all, the CIA has been closely tied in with the military since it was the OSS back in World War II and continuing to appoint civilians to its lead position won't make it any different. I'm sure that most CIA directors (including George Bush Sr.) were former military men before taking on that position, and while they might not have been directly under the Department of Defense they still probably maintained a loyalty to it. My personal concern is that this will increase the amount of activity perpetrated by the CIA against Americans, as we have a CIA director who thinks that such violations of the Constitution are all fine and good as long as the President asks for them.