Gen. Hayden: "4th Amendment and wrong"
Keith Olbermann posted this video clip of Gen. Hayden botching the fourth amendment- which Keith says:
OLBERMANN: To quote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, the one the general and the NSA folks are so familiar with and know is about reasonableness and not about probable cause, quote, “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.”
Well, maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA.
Video-WMP Video-QT (hat tip Arnie)
This also helped to open the door for Glenn Greenwald to expose them on FISA.
Glenn: "In other words, DeWine's bill, had it become law, would have eliminated the "probable cause" barrier (at least for non-U.S. persons) which the Administration is now pointing to as the reason why it had to circumvent FISA...read on"
2 comments:
But the general is correct. The standard for warrantless searches is reasonableness. The standard for issuing a warrant - which is not always required for a search - is probable cause. Look at it this way. We can search people without a warrant before they get onto airplanes because it is reasonable to do so. However, if we required a warrant to search people before getting onto airplanes, probable cause would be required.
It seems anomolous but there are historical reasons. At the time of the founding a victim of an illegal warrantless search could sue the officer who conducted it. But if the officer got a warrant, he could not be sued and the victime of an illegal search had no legal recourse. Thus the standard was higher for warrants than for warrantless searches.
That makes sense, however the existing standard for the searches they are performing - of potential U.S. targets - have by rule and statute required a Warrant. FISA contains many exceptions for non-warrant searches, specifically involving items, objects or information that exist in public view or within the public domain - but clearly this does not apply to information from private phone conversations and emails. As I've noted in other posts, the DOJ justifications for this project does not pass the Constitutional test set either by Hamdi or Youngstown. FISA is the exclusive governing authority for conducting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance - and the President and General Hayden have clearly violated FISA.
Vyan
Post a Comment