Michael Hayden | Full Q&A | Oxford Union

Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion

Originally an Air Force general, Hayden served as Director of the National Security Agency between 1999 and 2005 wherein he oversaw the expansion of the NSA’s surveillance program. In 2006, he was sworn in as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency until his retirement in 2009.

ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[oligarchs]

Interesting facts the subject is educative ❤

[nehmanator]

so many Trump lovers in this thread. Hayden offers his honest opinions, and because he's critical of Trump, people (#TrumpFans) believe he's a liar....Open your eyes.

[maryhollowell]

What is the date of this event in the Oxford Union?

[ttrestle]

Hayden is such a baller. Love how he hated Trump for being tarded and hated his cultist followers.

[helenlauer]

works with the private sector. sounds like his outfit works for Halliburton, tells corporations where to plunder, where to start wars. . . "it's a healthy thing. . ." A nightmare in a Brooks Brothers suit. they make movies about what this guy talks about with such dapper pizzazz.

[thegreatmonster]

Hmmm... Damn it Hayden, did the public in USA know this of the 'Two Doors'; "Fact & Vision" differential when they were voting for this current #DAIC of a President?

[eleonoraformatoneeszczepan]

From the middle of elsewhere:
In addition (particulars aside) though, it sound like it is important not to loose sight of other parties concerns and possible conflict, that might otherwise become as if not heard or recognised, from not also paying attention to a wider multifaceted perspective?

It really seems like, not every thing is clear cut - some things exist because of light, shade and shadows, and perspective: as a comparative type example, from one of many other possibilities: if a buffer is thought of as a human shield, bearing weight of force, then, that scenario might be considered hard lined and reprehensible. If on the other hand a buffer is thought of as a graduated, transition area, a zone or blend, where some people feel comfortable (even though you might not feel comfortable there, those people feel comfortable), and like translators of culture and understanding, then, that scenario might be considered vibrant and diverse. Given therefore, only that description and comparison, which scenario does a buffer comes across as, bearing weight of force? (to change things, of concerns, e.t.c.)?

Also, if someone is forced to join a democratic society quickly, is that democratic? They wouldn't get blinded by choice, be overwhelmed, become frustrated, and from that bad experience, not necessarily feel they are part of a democratic society and fail to grasp what it is to be part of a democratic society? ... I don't know ...

How about, the role of the internet? Where does it begin, where does it end? Is it discretely subdivided or continuous? Is it more part of admiralty, or space, or international, national, corporate, private, public, a utility, catalogue, publisher, telecommunications, distribution network, e.t.c.?

... international relations aren't, international? ... international politics isn't, international? ...
Is it, that what is being sought, is national theories of international politics?
Does it make as much sense, or more sense, or less sense, than international theories of national politics?
It seems that, international politics, could be another national category: national politics of international politics, equivalent to saying, national politics of US politics, or, national politics of China politics, or, national politics of Turkish politics, or, e.t.c. ?
Therefore, theories of international politics, by definition, would be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of the international nation? Either, the US, and China, and Turkey, and, e.t.c., together form, a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, or, they don't, and, distinct from, say, being a union of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states?

"China and Academia, what they want, John Mearsheimer" (International Relations & Politics)

It sounds like, within IR theory:
As part of Mearsheimer's 5 Assumptions:
In an IR field, nations' internal national politics - are not significant and can also be significant:
a) for the most part can be treated as having a negligible effect.
b) under certain circumstances treated as having a non-negligible effect.

A dispute, occurring under different circumstances: in the middle of international waters, or, in extending an economic exclusion zone into either another economic exclusion zone or into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not).

In a dispute that occurs in the middle of international waters, internal national politics of a nation, would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible.
In a dispute extending an economic exclusion zone into another another economic exclusion zone, then, internal national politics of nations involved would appear not to be significant and also significant, negligible and non-negligible - an additional nation, whose economic exclusion zone not affected, although, changes might alter agreements for passage, that additional nation's national politics would appear not to be significant and for the most part negligible - or, if into international waters (towards another economic exclusion zone, or not), internal national politics of nations involved might be not dissimilar to that of additional nation.

It looks like, in all those scenarios, it possible to simultaneously act as a part of nation and as part of an international nation.

If all nations were in a union, then, it seems like, in that situation, there might not be an international nation to be a part of, as all nations would belong to the same overall nation, governed by the same rules. Although, it might seem like it is not possible for an international nation to form, distinct from other nations and distinct from a union of nations, from within a union of nations, it might not be impossible.

Let's say that, there is a union called, Earth Nation, and every and all nations belong to it - it is all of the planet earth. Any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all nations. For example, Earth Nation might be responsible for deciding, if the moon is part of Earth Nation (or not), and if so, also assuming the moon is colonised and it wants to mooxit from Earth Nation, any negotiations for that mooxit.

Now, let's say Earth Nation is responsible for the internet and any decisions and rules of Earth Nation, would be made by all and apply to all for the internet. As an example, a rule might be that, all will be identified on Earth Nation internet, in the same way they are within the union that is Earth Nation, by each individual nation they are a citizen of.

Another rule, might be the recognition of an international nation and each individual nation on Earth Nation internet, and, all individuals of Earth Nation on the internet, not to be restricted from being able to participate in more than a nation, and, their citizenship and or where they are resident to be publicly displayed in any individual nation as a rule.

Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for an individual nation of the internet, would be determined by that individual nation and be applicable in that individual nation but not necessarily in each and every individual nation or the international nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated.

Also, a rule might be that, any rules set for the international nation of the internet, would be determined together by any individual nation participating and be applicable in the international nation, but not necessarily in each and every individual nation - as long as the basic Earth Nation internet rules were not violated.

So, if a US citizen, entered the UK nation on the internet, no matter where they lived, it would not be obvious, whether they were a UK citizen or not and or resident or not, but, would have to follow UK rules there and US rules would not apply - if in the UK nation on the internet, then it taken to be as if in the UK. If that same US citizen entered the International nation on the internet, then, it might show that it is a US citizen belonging to the US nation that they are participating, together with others, in forming the composition of that international nation, however, again, US rules would not apply, and would have to follow international rules.

Now, take a mainstream media video and comment section: it could be accessed in UK nation or International nation, but, it would be accessed from different places and the rules may or may not be different. Say for example, a rule of the international nation, that comment sections are to be treated as a town square. It wouldn't matter which nation a person was a citizen of or resident. When commenting in a comment section of a mainstream media video in the international nation, no matter where a person physically in the world, if in the international nation internet section, and the rule, comment sections are to be treated as a town square, and they choose to comment there, then, it is to be taken that commening there is as if doing so in a town square. On the other hand, when commenting in a comment section of that same mainstream media video in the UK nation, the rule might be that it is to be treated as a private function at a venue.

The choice, the risk, the benefits, upto individual internet users. If an individual does not feel comfortable with or familiar with rules on the internet of a nation they live in, then, they might choose not to comment in that nation's corresponding internet nation. Some individuals might feel comfortable the most, where they are actually a citizen, while others might find they spend most of their time in the international nation.

It doesn't sort of look like, it is not impossible for there to be theories of politics of the nation called international? Or, theories of politics of an international nation? ... a new, separate nation, distinct from other nations, a nation in of itself, and, distinct from, say, being a union of nations, of a collection of countries/states or a federation of states?

Don't mind me, I should be sleeping proper in the now ... I'll have to check what I've written later ...

Stay well. Peace.
Eleonora Formato née Szczepanowski
South Australia

New comments won't stay ... they disappear, on yt ... and my linkedin posts ... I can't access them ...
Fb was ... maybe ... see if I can share this there ...

[Street]

Did he finally get the wabbit? I hope so. He tried so hard...

[susworld]

The year now is 2023, I'm glad the Russians watched that movie World War Z.

[planecrashcorner]

The only people who didn't have their minds made up were Republicans trying to decide between their many candidates. Voters on the blue side seemed pretty dead set on either Hillary or Bernie. So, what exactly did this alleged "russian meddling" influence?

[johnf]

What other President can Finance himself. The way he talks I wonder what looking glass he is using.

[barbarianmissionary]

I was gonna say my piece about this man, but it seems most of the things already has been said. Thank you, Internet.

[chrisorman]

Notice he never goes to where adults over 40 years old are? He goes to the sheep.

[market]

that sucker almost telling the truth.. its amazing... almost.... missed seth rich..

[DD-oxex]

Another bought and paid for mouthpiece,

[dubjay]

This guy deserves to in jail for his crimes not allowed in polite society

[vincentpoulaert]

Yes that hurt badly Gen Hayden that was Nato i did suggest to enlarge and that'was clarck who did put me under hearings since my young age who has been prevent and who did make play his relations because he did cut me all and i m the grant son of general sanders and the son of colonel sanders and jocelyne charlier and the i dea of enlarging nato was mine like can say clarck colonel general sir vincent poulaert

[diamondbling]

Wiki opened a window for us to look into his world and Hillary's ...that's what he'll never talk about because he's neck deep in the immoral conduct

[farmerfreakeasy]

Hayden could have had a wonderful career in comedy. Notice the twitchy head movements, and the continuous reliance on hand