Obama Nominates Vice Admiral Michael Rogers New NSA Chief 138
wiredmikey writes "President Barack Obama has nominated a US Navy officer, Vice Admiral Michael Rogers, to take over as head of the embattled National Security Agency, the Pentagon said Thursday. Rogers, 53, would take the helm at a fraught moment for the spy agency, which is under unprecedented pressure after leaks from ex-intelligence contractor Edward Snowden revealed the extent of its electronic spying. If confirmed by lawmakers, Rogers would also take over as head of the military's cyber warfare command. Rogers, who trained as an intelligence cryptologist, would succeed General Keith Alexander, who has served in the top job since 2005. He currently heads the US Fleet Cyber Command, overseeing the navy's cyber warfare specialists, and over a 30-year career has worked in cryptology and eavesdropping, or 'signals intelligence.' His confirmation hearings in the Senate are likely to be dominated by the ongoing debate about the NSA's espionage, and whether its sifting through Internet traffic and phone records violates privacy rights and democratic values."
rebranded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Senate Filibuster Rules (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:rebranded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:rebranded? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The business of Admirals is to kill people and destroy their property. An Admiral won't mind smaller violence like breaking constitutional law, lying to the public, and spending taxpayer dollars on projects to make money for a few.
Which is exactly why they need to stop putting military people in these positions.
Yes civilians can do that stuff too, but at least there's a chance, however small, that things might change. Putting another Admiral or General in charge guarantees that nothing will change.
Re:The only acceptable solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can you spy? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the old hiring practice. The new practice adds the additional question "Are you willing to spy a lot on the American people?"
Can you spy on the American People and play dumb, convincingly before Congress? (They authorized all this but now clamber over each other claiming shock and dismay while attempting to reach for the highest indignation.)
No they didn't. Americans never voted on this crap. Hell, Congress had no time to read the Patriot act until after the vote either. After the fact we all heard about how the terrorist would kill all of our children if we repealed this law instead of having any rational debate.
Now you could claim that American's have been complacent and let things happen, that much I would agree with. This would also explain some of their shock and dismay as they see what the complacency has turned into.
Even that is questionable. One of Obama's Hope and Change speeches claimed that the Patriot act had to go, and that Government needed to be more transparent.
Re:Senate Filibuster Rules (Score:4, Insightful)
The opposition had been using the filibuster against appointments far too frequently
Fixed it for you. Hint: Democrats did the same thing.
Worry not, they'll reap what they've sowed sooner or later, when the GOP controls the Senate and White House. Politics is cyclical.
Well, duh (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA's job is to spy, so it makes sense to hire SIGINT people. The recent problem is who they've been spying on.
Re:Admiral now in charge of the NSA: What effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why do you think a military officer would be less inclined to follow the law than a civilian?
Why do you think a civilian would be more willing to follow illegal orders? The willingness of military to follow the chain of command is indoctrinated into them at every stage of their training and service. It is an _exceptional_ military leader who can see the larger political or moral picture. When those personnel's illegal orders or political abuses are walled behind national security claims, their indoctrinated willingness to follow orders without moral question encourages their actions, and political use of their willingness, to include abuse.
Worse than re-branding ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't really matter when the thing started because agencies that ignore the existence of the Constitutions are malicious cancers that can one day kill the nation.
It is up to the President of the United States to SHUT DOWN the offending agency (and / or agencies) in order to stem the malicious progression of these dangerous agencies.
The fact that Obama refuses to shut it down says a lot about the lack of integrity of the individual. As the POTUS he has to answer not only to his own office, but also to the hundreds of millions of the Citizens of the United States of America - and in this role, Obama has failed his job as the POTUS, the oval office - the satus of which the POTUS represents, and, the ***NATION*** !
Re:rebranded? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, the only thing I think you can criticize Obama vs previous presidents over the NSA scandal is: his did actually run against this sort of snooping in his first presidential campaign. Not that it's shocking that a politician breaks his promises or anything, but you'd think when all this became public he might have been more publically critical.
Re:rebranded? (Score:5, Insightful)
And this post highlights exactly why: when a trend that's been going on for decades across administrations from both major parties continues (or, worse, accelerates slightly), what happens? Half of Americans loudly blame the current incumbent, causing the other half to reflexively defend whatever this trend is.
Hint: Government is not like sports. Don't mindlessly support the Red Team or the Blue Team, they're supposed to stand for something.