Charlie Rose

G-Man  12/16/2007 03:40 PM Report

Well said Brooks!

The truth is that few in this nation have an understanding of the nature of the GWOT and may in fact not be aware of the background concerning politicosocial implications of not contending with islamic insurgency the way the US Intelligence community has in the years following the fall of the USSR.

One thing that is EXTREMELY clear is that foreign intelligence services have more often than not been extraordinarily ruthless in interrogation, MI5 and MI6 to name a few. The liberally candid American media does an outstanding job of painting the canvas of the American Intelligence landscape with a hue of victimization regarding the HVTs.

No one denies that torture is ugly business. No one openly sanctions it in this nation either. However, the complex nature of interrogating internationally known HVTs is not some cookie cutter proposition that presents itself on Christmas morning underneath the tree.

It IS in fact, as war is.......an ugly business. Throughout history, the American intelligence community has had to make some of the most uncomfortable and difficult decisions in the history of our constitution.

It isn't that the establishment or the agency takes these things lightly. The agency simply deals with those entities that present an intelligence gathering opportunity to the establishment with known effective techniques.

Understandably enough, the general public and liberal media see this as an endorsement for the use of techniques outside convention. When in fact, through evolutionary staging, the agency has come to utilize techniques that it knows are applicable to the current threat.

Bareback Videos  11/09/2007 08:54 AM Report

what's abuse here then?

disheartened yesterday and  11/02/2007 12:34 AM Report

For a perspective on the nations direction, try Naomi Wolf's, THE END OF AMERICA. A 155 page pamphlet that's soulful and an insightful warning for the direction we seem to be heading. It's poignant - scary.

Cookie  10/30/2007 10:46 PM Report

What I dont get is why people have to complain about other posters. So disheartening.

Brooks Helmick  10/30/2007 09:33 PM Report

After being extremely and surprisingly impressed by General Hayden's remarks I was astounded to see the negative reactions in this forum, obviously reflecting the liberal bias of the contributors. I would have expected the majority of the show's audience to be leftward leaning, but I would have hoped they would have been more "thinking and thoughtful" liberals, reflecting Charlie Rose's own style and character.

Charlie, all I can say is that you are a treasure to this country at this point in our history. You are one of the very few thought leaders in the nation that can look at, and examine with genuine respect, the points of view of either the left or the right.

Unfortunately one of Al Qaeda's largest, and no doubt unanticipated successes has been the polarization of the electorate. From a conservative's perspective it seems incredible that most of the left doesn't seem to grasp and/or believe what General Hayden said up front - i.e. not only are we in a war, but probably the most perilous war of our times. So I don't know how we crack the polarization problem other than breeding more Charlie Rose's. The NYT lost it as a liberal thought leader shortly after 9/11, as have most of the other contributors here. I would hope, from the left, if you can find them, you will get more people back on your show like Samantha Power, Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Advisor. In her NYT Magazine piece last summer, she laid out a solid case that the left has no terror strategy other than to critique the right, and then laid out a case on how to build one. She is a rare gem. Get her back soon and seek more like her.

Berne Mills  10/27/2007 01:09 AM Report

What constitutes abuse?

Greta  10/26/2007 03:46 AM Report

Watching this was more about watching how General Hayden responded, because "he lies for a living" and as the head of an organization staffed by those who got into the organization based on their willingness to "lie for a living," probably doesn't remember what it means to have an honest conversation.

It was quite distressing to watch him. He was clearly a very frightened man, perhaps ready to have a breakdown. needless to say, if would not be a good thing for the US if the head of one of our intelligence agencies had a nervous breakdown anytime. His fear could not be a fear of the relatively small group of people known as Al Qaeda. What are the chances Al Qaeda would find him, torture, or kill him? I had to wonder if he was,in fact, afraid of being tortured himself, and, if so, by whom?

Of course, it is extremely unlikely General Hayden would tell us or Congress something that we or Congress desperately needs to know concerning national security if the administration forbade it for political reasons, but the character of his responses made it a fascinating interview.

Christopher Bouchard  10/25/2007 04:46 AM Report

It is a good interview but when the General hesitates discussing interrogation techniques such as those that shock the conscience (ie does not want to discuss waterboarding) on the basis that the enemies will train to resist these techniques; he, on the other hand, discusses the techniques that do not shock the conscience (ie telling a captive what the CIA knows, breaking down the cover stories that the â??enemy combatantâ?? is giving).

Would I appear cynical in resuming that the reason that he does not discuss the torture is because it would shock the votersâ?? conscience? It amazes me that Americans, (like Charlie Rose among others) are incapable of saying, we are a nation that tortures in the interest of national security and national interest. This is the moral hurdle that the US faces which affects t position in the Middle East. It is the Abu Grahibs, the rendition, the torture that hurts the USâ??s stature as an exemplary democracy. Seriously, would anyone deny the US is now in about 20-25th place in the world in the ideal democracy to live in? It used to be top 5.

Note: I did find extremely clever the example the general used of giving an example military training methods as a threshold to the level of pain one can inflict in interrogation. There is only one way the US can get out of this, create an interrogation manual like the army does. I think of the dozens of methods available, an Al-Qaida operative cannot train for all of them. The really reason they do not discuss the torture is that if the CIA states which torture techniques are used, there will be a public outrage. This to me is very disturbing. I understand the mandate of the CIA but it has to understand that the US constitution can only be interpreted one way. The fault lies with the Congress which is not checking the executive by laying down the rules and impeaching if they are not obeyed.

L. Lundin  10/25/2007 01:34 AM Report

I was horrified by the casual tone Gen. Hayden used when equivocating about torture techniques the US now employs. He spoke about torture as if he was describing a recent family vacation. The US is the strongest, richest nation in the world, and yet we reduce ourselves to using toruture. We have the resources to do great good in this world, and the fact our leaders choose do evil is reprehensible. We've lost our moral compass. I thought we were better than all this; unfortunately I am wrong. The next administration must remove the General Haydens from power.

hubris fatigue  10/24/2007 08:46 PM Report

A sure-fire test of the effectiveness of renditioning torture would subject Prince and Hayden to an episode. If they both retained their arrogant demeanor and self-assured silver-spooned image, then it's ineffectual. Course we could always keep trying. If pairs are good, there's always Bush and Cheney. Followed by Bill and Hillary, since he disappointedly started it all, and she seems to endorse it. If you condone it you shouldn't miss out on it.

G-Man  10/24/2007 07:55 PM Report

Gen Hayden is a highly capable patriot and defender of the republic. He has clearly outlined the extraordinary task of the Agency's responsibility in the defense of the federal constitution based republic that America is and has been since it's inception.

Those who are less knowledgeable often draw vague and uninformed conclusions on what they feel is their "need to know." It is NOT a "need to know" item for any private citizen of this or any other nation to "know" the internal operations of the CIA. It is the CIA's role to know that specific information.

Robert Philbin  10/24/2007 07:49 PM Report

Having just finished reading Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes", I have to confess to only tolerating about 10 minutes of this interview -- it's perfectly obvious why CIA is the most failed organization in Washington, D.C. Mr. Hayden has all the answers and none of the intelligence; the organization he runs has been 60% outsourced to corporations, and is part of a $44 billion dollar a year boondoggle employing 100,000 agents and analysts, who have missed every major event since the end of World War II, failed every president, squandered billions in taxpayer dollars, and killed thousands of their own operatives. Again, Weiner documents all of this and, in fact, his recent interview on the subject is available on this website.

Thank you,

Robert Philbin

Harrison  10/24/2007 07:03 PM Report

Good work Charlie, I am a little confused however, as to why the Director of the CIA doesn't know much about the Al Qeada website?

Also, I think it would be a good idea to ask those folks why they don't like Americans and perhaps spend some time resolving those issues.

Thank you

Terry Jones  10/24/2007 05:55 PM Report

It disturbs me as well seeing a man in full general's military uniform, heading the CIA. Has this ever happened before? Oh, come on, is this what he wears to work? General Hayden's body language spoke volumes at times and this was a study in avoiding answers and obfuscation, all in the name of national security. Have we not had enough of this from our government?

I love Charlie but he seems to be slipping a bit lately in his interviews. He seems to be avoiding confrontation. His recent interview with Eric Prince of Blackwater certainly lacked an edge and allowed Prince to spin on and on for an hour. Fortunately Bill Moyer's Journal last Friday gave us much more information about this really awful company in his discussion with author Jeremy Scahill. Have we not learned in the last five years how important it is for our democracy that journalists ask really hard questions?

Dr. WarLphoost  10/24/2007 04:06 PM Report

It's unfortunate Charlie didn't do his homework regarding the FISA court, and the General's comments regarding the need to change it in order to protect our country. That court wouldn't hesitate to give permission to eavedrop, whatever, on a suspected muslim terrorista, even retroactively. What wouldn't fly, which is why Shrub wanted to bypass it, is his & Cheney's desperate need to listen in on ANY frickin' person or group they don't like! Check it out Charlie!

piers  10/24/2007 02:40 PM Report

Charlie Rose lobbed question to Gen. Hayden like a junior high tennis coach. I mean what about asking him about the rendition of Maher Arar or Khaled El-Masri, both innocent men kidnapped by our country sent to third countries where they WERE TORTURED! It seemed as if Mr. Rose has become an official apologist and mouth piece for the criminal policies the CIA and this administration endorse. Honestly every question seemed as if they were asked in order to facilitate whatever agenda Gen. Hayden wanted to promote. Also, did anyone notice Gen. Haydenâ??s facial tics? I swear every time he was really laying it on thick, his face just went haywire. Charlie Rose should stop pandering so blatantly to his guests, it is embarrassing. I know he wants to create a rapport, but it should not be at the expense of real journalism, unless he is trying to be more like Jimmy Kimmel or David Letterman

ab irato  10/24/2007 10:58 AM Report

Firstly, no democracy can prevail for long with a secret organization within its structure. The checks and balances between the branches is compromised with the secret organization answering (only at its discretion) to the president. The absurdity of this is magnified by imagining two more such organizations for the remaining two branches to restore balance. God forbid! . . . . paragraph . . . . Secondly, the methods are so demeaning and degrading to our nation and our reputation around the world that the net merit and value of the organization is negative. In short we would be better off without it. [The book, "A legacy of Ashes," demonstrated this with the CIA conspiracy with the Kennedys to assassinate Castro that in effect boomeranged; and the unforgivable CIA implant of Pinochet in Chile. - A scurrilous organization. pppppppppppppppppppppppp paragraph ppppppppppppppppppppppppp Rendition for example is so anathema and 'renders' us as dissembling, naive, disingenuous and insulting fools. Our claim that we do not torture and in the same breath admit to sending captives to a foreign country that is known world-wide to indulge in torture, is so specious and fatuous our credibility is flushed even deeper into the world toilet. ppppppppppppppppp paragraph ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp Lastly, "The End of America," by Naomi Wolf should be required reading for all CIA personnel and prospective agents. Not smart enough to end with a snappy sign-off. Lamely let's try: don't throw the baby out with the bath water; or what have you gained if you lose our soul and the whole country; or if we become as our enemies, haven't they won? Ask Christine Axsmith, who blogged against waterboarding, and was fired from the CIA (from Naomi's book). pppppppppppppppppp paragraph ppppppppppppppppppp Despite your over-valued Republican M-I complex sense of singular patriotism, you're merely one of many misguided administration despots with the unfortunate power to drag our once proud nation further into the quagmire of just another failed empire.

Irwin B  10/24/2007 09:44 AM Report

You are to be congratulated for having General Hayden on your show, if only to highlight the circular reasoning of the members of the current administration, (including the Attorney General Mukasey. At the end of the show, General Hayden called for more dialogue and "facts'. Yet every time you tried to get fact from him, he hid behind the convenient shield of "state secret", and easily foiled any attempt at getting the facts out. What a charade.

On the other hand, bravos and kudos on the Jeffrey Toobin segment.

Dave Thomas  10/24/2007 09:37 AM Report

I really enjoyed the interview with Jeff Toobin, but Charlie talked over him during most of the interview and interrupted consistently. Otherwise it was a good show.

s.geddes  10/24/2007 12:43 AM Report

I would just like to know how much of the kool-aid you drank while interviewing this truly frightening man. Double speak is where his expertise is.

Phillip Urso Russo  10/24/2007 12:27 AM Report

General Hayden is a super gentle man - all leaders are....? As a CIA Director, I hope he is cunning, ruthless, prescient, daring with the gentle legs of integrity as plasma. He is aforesaid and most certainly more......

Be wise and pick the correct prizm before you

Eagle Eye

John L  10/23/2007 11:09 PM Report

Someone ought to go over Charlie's appearance before the shoot. One time his cuffs were unbuttoned and tonight his collar is sticking out. Oops.

Irwin B  10/23/2007 10:25 PM Report

I was very disturbed by the sight of a uniformed 4 Star general as the head of what is supposed to be a civilian agency dedicated to spying internationally, that is supposed to be separate from the FBI and the Pentagon. I also am astounded by the lack of any discussion of the appropriate and needed role of the judiciary branch of our government in monitoring the bounds of torture and rendition. Have we forgotten about the separation of powers that is a key part of our republic?

John  10/23/2007 08:55 PM Report

I wonder if Mr. Goebbles would be proud.

Brian Merritt  10/23/2007 07:30 PM Report

General Hayden has shown his ability to skate around the question of "What constitutes torture?" He gave reference to the Military's Code of Ethics, the U.S. Constitution and even the Geneva Convention rules for interrogating prisoners. I know you tried hard Charlie, but we were not enlightened in the least about current procedures being used by the CIA. All we have are references of Abu Ghraib (electrodes to the testicles) and Guantanamo (water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and who knows what else). The CIA have suspected terrorists locked up in Colorado's bunker type prison (23 hours per day in solitary confinement in a concrete windowless cell), to rendition and finally Guantanamo.

General Hayden said that those suspects shipped by rendition to other countries would not be tortured, as there is some sort of agreement between the U.S. and those countries on iterrogation practices. However, the Canadian Maher Arar was flown from New York to Jordan by the CIA and subsequently shipped to Syria from Jordan. He was tortured for almost a year by the Syrians, only to be finally released through the efforts of the Canadian government. The CIA refuses to acknowledge their part in this. Mr. Arar has been declared completely innocent of any terroist charges by the Supreme Court of Canada. Does the U.S./CIA have such non-torture agreements with Syria, Egypt, etc.? Perhaps if you have him on again , Charlie, you could ask him to respond to these questions. I thank you for bringing some of this stuff out of the CIA's shadowy world.

Shocked  10/23/2007 05:12 PM Report

I found General Hayden's comments on torture truly disturbing. After assuring us that HIS conscience was entirely at peace (and after some cajoling by Charlie Rose) Hayden concludes that torture should be understood as that which "shocks the conscience." A beautiful piece of Orwellian rhetoric! Whose conscience? The torturer's? I think the behavior of the CIA (Quantanamo, Secret Renditions, etc.) has indeed "shocked the conscience" of millions of Americans - as well as many millions more accross the planet. The fact that those who earn their paychecks condoning and facilitating what many DO consider torture have become inured to the pain and suffering that they inflict on unnamed and unnumbered "suspects" who have been denied ANY legal recourse, is not entirely surprising - one gets used to such things I suppose. To speak of conscience is another matter...

John Simonds  10/23/2007 03:47 PM Report

CIA director Hayden's comments that the most effective interrogation technique is knowledge of the subject. An extraordinary example of this is the bathroom scene in the first episode of Masterpiece Theatre's Mrs. Pritchard. Everyone should watch it.

Christian T  10/23/2007 01:13 PM Report

http://download.rbn.com/cspan/cspan/download/podaudio/belt102107_perloff.mp3

Charlie,

Could you host a discussion with James Perloff, author, Â?The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline

We get the government we elect ...

CT

Steve Lawson  10/23/2007 03:27 AM Report

We all know that military men are trained from the very beginning not to question their commanders. Colin Powell is probably the best current example of that mentality.

Is a four star general really an appropriate appointment for a clandestine offshore civilian agency? Hayden's background speaks volumes regarding his pedigree. He is a Rumsfeld clone and a Washington sycophant.

Charlie, thanks for trying.

Barbara Pettibone  10/23/2007 02:11 AM Report

Iam offended by this man -- Gen. Hayden. He is obviously a rich boy's man -- those rich boys being Cheney and Bush - an organization man who has been programmed to speak as he has, and who, unfortunately, probably has no insight into the fool he's become. He smiled when asked crucial questions -- check it on the video -- smiled when asked about torture, about waterboarding, consistently in response to any controversial questions. Charlie Rose -- you did a fine job but were confronted by a liar. It troubles me to think that the director of the CIA has facial tics which become active when he lies -- watch the video. I was ok when he testified bebore the senate. Now, as a result of this interview, I am frightened that such a man is in this position, obviously owned and programmed by this administration. The interview only makes me more discouraged and incredulous at this country's leaders. I did not believe one word he said -- that less than one hundred were held by the CIA and that less than one third of these had been renditioned to other countries. What disturbs me most is that some will believe this crap. Charlie Rose -- I know you are a Republican but I have respected you because I've believed you were after the truth. I hope this tradition continues.

Ted Carmack  10/22/2007 11:59 PM Report

I want to take a moment of your time to thank you for the very informative interview and very candid responses from General Hayden.

It was very helpful and much more informative and trustworthy than the always-hedged answers we seem to get from the President.

I would like to ask that you help to persue the answer from someone like Gen. Hayden regarding what is being done to see who violated Federal law and exposed Valerie Plame as an agent of the CIA. Does the General believe that the Administration should be allowed to violate the law for political purposes and reveal the identity of our most important agents?

Thanks for such a great job.

Ted