• Home


  • American Entropy is dedicated to the disruption and discrediting of neoconservative actions and the extreme ideals of the religious right.


    Add to Technorati Favorites

    Top Blogs

    My Zimbio



    Get Firefox!


    24 January 2006

    Does the military understand the 4th Amendment?

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button
    FYI, The 4th Amendment reads as follows:
    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 shall 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.


    But General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, must have missed that part. This is illustrated well here:
    QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but 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.

    QUESTION: But the --

    GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

    QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

    GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

    QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

    GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

    QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

    GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.

    QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause."

    And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place of probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?

    GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order.

    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. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.

    In other news, this conservative outfit notes that the White House is planning for Impeachment hearings:
    "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said.

    Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


    February should be interesting.

    Posted by Geoff

    Links to this post:

    Create a Link



    Google

    AddThis Feed Button

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online


    B l o g R o l l




    Archives