Yesterday Thom played portions of a clip of General Hayden giving his interpretation of the Fourth Amendment at the National Press Club in January. He was being interviewed by Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder. The exchange went as follows:
quote:
[Jonathan Landay] But does it not say probable — [Gen. Hayden] No. The amendment says — [Jonathan Landay] The court standard, the legal standard — [Gen. Hayden] — unreasonable search and seizure. [Jonathan Landay] The legal standard is probable cause,
…
quote:
[Jonathan Landay] my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use — [Gen. Hayden] No, actually — the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. [Jonathan Landay] But the — [Gen. Hayden] That's what it says. [Jonathan Landay] But the measure is probable cause, I believe. [Gen. Hayden] The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure. [Jonathan Landay] But does it not say probable — [Gen. Hayden] No. The amendment says — [Jonathan Landay] The court standard, the legal standard — [Gen. Hayden] — unreasonable search and seizure. [Jonathan Landay] The legal standard is probable cause, General.
…
quote:
[Gen. Hayden] Just to be very clear — and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What’s your interpretation?
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
I think the General knew that Jonathan Landay is a contributer to Common Dreams and a critic of the war and administration so he was trying hard to avoid giving him a sound bite.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
My first though is, who was the amendment written for? For the people, or for lawyers? A constitution that is not comprehensible to the people is worthless, IMO.
The article quotes 'the Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton' (1995):
quote:
Warrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause. But a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either. A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.”
This seems to imply that if you do not have probable cause, don't get a warrant; just go ahead anyway. All you have to do is say that your "special need" trumps the person's right not to be unreasonably searched, etc.
I'd have thought it ought to be the other way round; if you don't have probable cause, you ought to have to go to a judge and persuade them that you have a "special need". The FISA court deals with situations where you don't have time to do this in advance.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
I would like to know why four democrats, including my senator, Diane Feinstein, voted in favor of Gen. Hayden's confirmation. I am geniunely confused as to why anyone would be supportive of leaders of the NSA program.
Posts: 1 | Location: California | Registered: 23 May 2006
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Originally posted by Sawdust: Cause he's qualified?
A paedophile can be well qualified as a teacher - not that I'm saying he's one, just that qualifications and experience aren't everything. You have to look at the whole picture. Sounds like they didn't.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
Well, no, being a pedophile would disqualify one from a teaching position.
I listened to some of the hearings. Hayden seems pretty sharp to me.
I will say that people who are qualified to be in charge of a bunch of spies are easy targets for criticism, just because of the work they do. I wouldn't want to party with Gen. Hayden but I think he's qualified to do the job that's being asked of him.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
Well, no, being a pedophile would disqualify one from a teaching position.
I meant, that they may have the academic qualifications and the experience for the post, but still not be suitable. With Hayden, he may have the experience of wiretapping, etc., but he is a military man and it is a civilian agency.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
This country has a long history of employing military people as the head of the CIA. They have the structure and the experince in many cases to do a good job. I think that many here may have a problem with the job. I guess they could hire a civilian with no experience and no grasp of what the job entails. That would probably make people who wanted to see the CIA do a poor job happy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
In good times that would be fine, but America has been abandoning so many of her checks and balances lately, that the remaining ones should be defended vigorously.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
Checks and balances refer to interactions between the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive brances of government. Hayden has nothing to do with checks and balances.
Personally, I like the thought of a CIA director with a strong sense of personal honor. Many generals exhibit that trait and I believe Hayden has it.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
Posts: 8264 | Location: Fl | Registered: 05 July 2001
This reminds me of watching the exchange between Gonzo and Arlen Specter, where the Attorney General of the United States explained to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee how the Constitution didn't actually give Americans the right to habeus corpus, but only the right not to have it revoked.
I can still remember the look on Arlen Specter's face. He just couldn't believe what he was hearing.
People sometimes thing Gonzalez is putting on an act, but I think he actually is stupid.
The General sounds more intelligent and a better liar.
Yes, answering questions in parliament is good exercise! And people tend to cluster round the speaker to make the place look busier than it is, on TV. I was thinking more of the quality of the response or repartee.
Sue N.
Posts: 4624 | Location: UK | Registered: 16 November 2004
Individuals are legally responsible for their views. Messages or parts of messages may be quoted or read on the radio, or reprinted in Thom's books and other materials.
Discussion Community 
