What Does the CIA Director Know?

Today former CIA directory Michael Hayden spoke out against the release of classified memos, saying that this action is "endangering the country." He also points out the obvious--well, obvious to everyone but leftists and other terrorist rights supporters -- that releasing information that is supposed to be secret

will also deter other governments from cooperating with the United States because it shows the U.S. "can't keep anything secret."

But who needs cooperation with other intelligence agencies? It's way more important that the public knows exactly how terrorists were interrogated.  Why should the secret operations of secret intelligence agencies be allowed to remain secret?

Unlike some former Bush administration officials, Hayden has steadfastly defended CIA actions. Back in January he said this about interrogation techniques:

"These techniques worked," Hayden said of the agency's interrogation program during a farewell session with reporters who cover the CIA. "One needs to be very careful" about eliminating CIA authorities, he said, because "if you create barriers to doing things . . . there's no wink, no nod, no secret handshake. We won't do it."

But what could the former head of the CIA possibly know about that? We should listen to terrorist rights supporters instead. Hayden also argued that

interrogations of key Al Qaeda figures accounted for the bulk of the United States' understanding of the terrorist network, and led to a series of successful operations around the globe.

But what does he know? He was only the director of the CIA. Just because he actually directed our primary intelligence agency, had full access to information not available to the public, probably knows more about CIA operations than almost anyone else, and continues to make these arguments despite their highly unpopular political nature, doesn't mean we need to listen to him. Protecting terrorist rights is more important.