Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment

[sabra]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001883620

Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on 4th Amendment

NEW YORK The former national director of the National Security Agency, in an appearance today before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., today, appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when pressed by a reporter with Knight Ridder's Washington office -- despite his claims that he was actually something of an expert on it.

General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, talked with reporters about the current controversy surrounding the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of communications of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. Hayden has been in this position since last April, but was NSA director when the NSA monitoring program began in 2001.

As the last journalist to get in a question, Jonathan Landay, a well-regarded investigative reporter for Knight Ridder, noted that Gen. Hayden repeatedly referred to the Fourth Amendment's search standard of "reasonableness" without mentioning that it also demands "probable cause." Hayden seemed to deny that the amendment included any such thing, or was simply ignoring it.

Here is the exchange, along with the entire Fourth Amendment at the end.

***

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.

[oc2002]

1. Generals do not like being corrected, even when they are clearly full of .

shit.

[havocmom]

7. Such generals should go work elsewhere then! This is a Democracy

We best be reminding the little poppin-jay of that fact!

[BrendaStarr]

23. Not really anymore

But we hide here in our liberal groups while the right wingers are taking over the mixed forums all over the web as well as dominating the talk at churches, family gatherings, and even stopping people at work or on the sidewalk for a little chat.

If we don't want to lose again we need to get our facts straight and then get them to the rest of America.

Good facts set out in a list for starters.

And yet keep the ability to run (mostly to the web unless you know the proper insider for the subject) and get more facts when they bring up reasonable questions. That doesn't mean to run to the liberal message board and get someone else to do the work (except as the last resort).

And remember, only liberals (and of those people with too much time on their hands) will read rants and it's hard to remember the facts included in a rant. We need shorter, more facts, accusations, and idea based, and focused writing to reach the average American on the web.

Also remember that the right winger message boarders do not play fair. They make up ridiculous questions, repeat lies to catapult the propaganda, repeat lies after they've been disproven, refuse to listen to any other sources but their own, and, of course, use nearly constant abuse. This has done a great job of keeping liberals off the mixed boards and hiding in liberal groups. This also keeps a lot of ordinary people from posting on message boards, though not from reading them. Remember the third party eyes. Many times they will feel emboldened and start posting an if there is already a set of bold and smart liberals leading the way. Sometimes if you are in a small forum with a group of paid right wing posters it is really tough, but it could be all that more important. (In that case try getting some friends to help. And focus on the important hours of after school to bed time. The paid right wingers will be sure to smother anything you've written in the morning with even junk posts by afternoon.)

Give our cause an hour or two on the mixed boards (or even other conversation with average Americans) 5 days a week. Lets see what we can't do before November.

The point is to give the struggle to get real news, etc., and liberal ideas, and sensibility to average Americans who treat politics as entertainment and just watch the TV news.

(Did General Richard Sanchez saying that civil war was already existant in Iraq reach TV news? I'm sorry to say that I couldn't find a whisper about his remarks in the print media last night. I'll do another search today.)

Rather than doing what we've been taught by trolls by bashing our own candidates (who's job is to represent all Americans, not to fight the battles that rank and file members should be doing) let's get out and fight for our good ideas and the solutions that a liberal agenda would offer.

We still will need DU for facts, and community. But hiding in a liberal group (even under the guise of 'organizing people' will not help.

And we've (liberals have) done the "Bash the elected Democrat" game for 2 decades. This is where it has gotten us. We might even lose ground while Bush gets away with spying on Americans.

Lets try something different this year.

http://brst.livejournal.com

[havocmom]

27. Thanks for the points and lecture

Throwing cold water on each other should be on it too.

Some of us are not hiding in liberal groups. Probably MOST are not.

A lot of us do a lot outside.

[Pastiche423]

30. Where do you get your "facts"

Hiding in a liberal group?

:wtf:

Have you not seen the massive amount of photos of protests around the country for the past five years?

How about the mountains of emails, snail mail and faxes sent and announced on the floor of the House and the Senate?

Just because YOU are not aware does not mean it isn't happening.

Nothing, nada, zip turns me off quicker than a lecture. Especially when that lecture is full of presumptions.

[urlborg]

42. This is not a mere Democracy, Germany was a 'democracy'....

The Wiemar Republic was a mere semi-constitutional 'democracy'.

America is a Republic of Liberty!!! Our supreme anointed 'warlord-tyrant' is a piece of paper that outlines and guarantees our Liberties, it protects the few from the populist many of whatever fascist persuasion.

This Republican Constitution of Liberty is designed to preserve and protect the liberty, both of individuals and of it's States, from mere democracy!

"Today Christians rule Germany! I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the true Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess..." - *The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1

[Straight Shooter]

2. Was Hayden a big critic of the Clinton administration?

I'm wondering if he chimed in when the Clinton administration inappropriately (now deemed illegal) conducted a search of personal effects. Sorry, too early in the morning for me to have my facts down.

At any rate, looks like Hayden is a nice little pat-on-the-head "that's a good boy" doggie for the bush administration. Makes me sick when a high-level military official doesn't even know what he's supposed to be defending.

[tabasco]

28. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Makes me sick when a high-level military official doesn't even know what he's supposed to be defending.

SPOT ON.

This asshole needs to go serve in the Chinese Army because he supports dictatorship against the Constitution!

[UpInArms]

3. Amendment IV

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.

These freaks of nature should all be imprisoned for their own protection :evilgrin:

[Wickerman]

8. A problem with so many of the Amendments

folks often forget to look all the way through the Amendment and only pick the first part of it as it best suits their PoV. Of course, the following part is always the explanatory portion. :eyes:

Imprison them, indeed. I understand their are some not well known prisons overseas where the General and friends could be re-educ, er, protected from themselves. :evilgrin:

[killbotfactory]

4. Says it all, doesn't it?

These assholes took an oath to defend the constitution, and don't even know what's in it.

[UpInArms]

5. Hayden was Negroponte's deputy

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/07/01/2003261761

excerpt:

The White House also directed the creation of a National Security Service inside the FBI. Bush also sought to strengthen the hand of the new national intelligence director over the FBI, under a directive that gives him expanded budget and management powers over the bureau.

David Heyman, homeland security director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the White House has effectively ended the debate over whether there should be an independent domestic intelligence agency, akin to Britain's MI-5.

Now, "the question is whether the FBI culture ... can go into the spy business, which is about surveillance and taking your time and cultivating a lead," Heyman said. "There is a real difference between police and spies."

The White House will also National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to establish a National Counter Proliferation Center that will coordinate the government's collection and analysis of intelligence on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- a task now performed by several agencies.

Negroponte's deputy, General Michael Hayden, said the center would only have 50 to 100 employees, thereby avoiding some insiders' worries of "brain drain" as new offices tap into existing ones.

...more...

[Thor_MN]

36. Sounds like he should be be issued only one bullet, and can't keep it in

his gun...

[havocmom]

6. ::sigh:: Where do we start to address this tripe?

:think: Hey, how about we start really teaching civics and government again to school kids? If enough of the population actually understood how the system is supposed to work, had some knowledge of the ACTUAL working of the Bill of Rights, a nodding acquaintance with the concept of Rule of Law... maybe apologists for tyranny would get soundly laughed off any podium in America!

Re-writing the amendments to justify criminal behavior is taking Newt Gingrich's teaching of 'say the same thing over & over until they believe it' too fucking far!

Call the crook on it. Raise bloody hell about this government official who thinks HE can amend and interrupt the Constitution to HIS advantage!

LTTE, calls in to TV and Radio shows. Send the transcript, with his words high-lighted, to your congress critters.

This man is a threat to the nation! Let's get some attention to that fact. And let us hope Fitz is gathering what is needed to put him away.

[sui generis]

9. talking point for us:

NAME ONE TERRORIST INCIDENT THAT WAS AVERTED by spying on our citizens. Just one.

Go 'head, I've got all day.

Prove that your domestic spying program is effective and gets results. Prove it. Seriously. Prove it or shut up Mr. General. Prove it.

[Uben]

10. I caught it...

....and Bush used the same phrase yeasterday in his speech..."reasonable suspicion" instead of probable cause. This has to be a coordinated effort to re-phrase the constitution and not a coincidence. Someone needs to question who came up with the phrase "reasonable suspicion" and why.
The constitution says we are not to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure, but any warrants must be issued under "probable cause"

[gratuitous]

11. And Gen. Hayden pops off in a room full of reporters

And not one of them seems to know the actual text of the Fourth Amendment. Landay, the only person in the room who had the temerity to question the General's uninformed rantings, gets close to the nub, but also fails to state unequivocally ("my understanding is") what the Fourth Amendment's plain language says. And so the General gets a pass from the bulldogs of the press.

[Judi Lynn]

12. Excellent article! The Knight Ridder writer had him cold.

From the article:

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.
(snip/...)

Simply unbelievable. They will do absolutely anything other than what is right.

[Mithras61]

13. OMG! It's "Red " from "That 70's Show"

Sounds like he's a "dumass"...

[Boo Boo]

29. This guy's bobbing and weaving so hard because he knows his

nuts are in a vice. He is, in effect, pleading ignorance by refusing to admit that he knows what the law is. He knows that, as a military officer, he is required to not obey unlawful orders. He lays it all out for us when he says, "I am responding to a lawful order. All right?" That's his cover story, and he's going to stick to it come hell or high water.

He must know that he was actually following unlawful orders, regardless of what the AG said, because he was conducting warrantless searches on American citizens within the United States. Not a lot of ambiguity there. Regardless of whether the standard is reasonableness or probable cause the man did not have a warrant. His only hope is that the Supreme Court agrees with the AG that the "Unitary Executive" does not need search warrants.

Forget about the standard (reasonable vs. probable)... It's the Warrant, Stupid.

[Geo55]

34. Yep.....he's a good lil' soldier,

"I am responding to a lawful order. All right?" That's his cover story, and he's going to stick to it come hell or high water.


Here's 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 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 upon probable cause"""........DICKHEAD ! , not because we reasonably THINK we should !!

God bless that reporter.....you see ?.....keep pressing them an' they HAVE to fold...

(but I was only doing my "duty")....drag the lil' fuck off

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

45. "I was just following orders"

Maybe it loses something in translation.

/Interesting side-note from the linked article: the U.S. once had a Chief Counsel for War Crimes.

[Guaranteed]

44. The 4th Amendment uses the words "probable cause."

4th 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 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, oh, that's right, they don't need warrants.

[Just Me]

14. Yep. Without "probable cause", search and seizure ARE UNREASONABLE.

You idiotic authoritarian!!!

THAT'S why the military should NEVER be in charge of law enforcement in this country: no one has rights in the military except the rights defined by the military. It's not a democracy. The Constitution does not apply.

[Nickster]

15. "Without "probable cause", search and seizure ARE UNREASONABLE

I just don't see how these idiots get away with making crap up. The 4th Amendment is pretty darn clear about exactly what you said. There are no loop-holes, there are no "buts" about it. You need a friggin warrant and you only get one with probable cause.

[Igel]

18. I think people aren't understanding the import of what he was saying.

It's not hard, given a little critical thinking and basic literacy.

There's an 'and' that's being interpreted differently. The reporter assumes that the only condition that a search and seizure is permissible under is a warrant. But this is obviously counter-factual.

The general assumes that since the Amendment uses an 'and' it's plausibly referring to different things: the judicial may issue a warrant based only on 'probable cause', but the executive may conduct searches and seizures that are not 'unreasonable'. Now, the executive conducts searches and seizures routinely that have no warrant involved. SCOTUS has ruled 'probable cause' applies to those, as well, in all cases--I think--and I don't think that many judges actually would buy such a strict, close reading of the text.

I'm not a lawyer and whether the two conditions have been ruled to be equivalent (add: in all cases) I simply can't say.

But *that* is what the general is saying, and that's at the heart of the DoJ letter, and the administration's case.

[Mithras61]

20. The SCOTUS has ruled (unanimously, IIRC) that...

wiretaps are considered searches, and the 1995 modifications of the 1978 FISA require warrants for both wiretaps & physical searches (as opposed to the original 1978 act, which only required them for wiretaps). Aside from that, I don't know if the SCOTUS has ruled that the two clauses are equal, but a close reading seems to me to indicate that they are defining an unreasonable searches and seizures as being those conducted without a warrant...

U.S. Constitution: 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 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.

[tn-guy]

16. One other key point

I read the transcript of the interview. One other point he explicitly made was that one end of the communications which were intercepted was outside the U.S.

Now he may have been lying or he may not have been. But this raises two questions in my mind: 1) Assuming he is lying, does anyone have any evidence that communications that both originated and terminated in the U.S. were monitored? 2) Assuming he is not lying, how in the world could this be labeled "domestic" spying?

Anyone want to clarify things?

[Mithras61]

17. There are currently multiple...

lawsuits and claims that several anti-_Bush groups have been monitored in this program.

Fundamentally, though, it doesn't matter, since FISA covers both and mandates warrants, and no warrants were obtained.

[tn-guy]

24. perhaps I'm confused

Did you mean to say that FISA covers communications that are both purely domestic and those that originate or terminate in a foreign location? It's hard for me to believe that a warrant is required to monitor calls made from or to a foreign phone.

[Mithras61]

26. Well, try this link for more...

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.

More details here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html


But in any case, yes, warrants ARE required to monitor calls to foreign phones, since there is a substantial liklihood that a US person is involved in that call.

[tn-guy]

31. sorry I'm so dense

Please bear with me. Let me pose a hypothetical scenario:

US patrol in Iraq or Afganistan gets into a shootout with insurgents, one of which is killed. The insurgent has a cell phone on him. The US commander reasons, "If I watch to see who calls this guy, I may find other insurgents." You're telling me that he has to have a warrant to do that? What if he wants to monitor the cell network and not just watch the phone? It seems very hard to believe that a warrant would be required in such a circumstance.

[Mithras61]

32. This is not at all what is meant by "wiretap"...

or what this conversation is about. What we're talking about is the NSA connecting into the major telco's switches in the good ol' USofA and doing some listening/recording of various conversations from domestic locations to both domestic & international destinations. The warrants are required to listen in & record those conversations.

There has also been speculation that the NSA's been gathering data on a massive scale that they then use data mining techniques on to try and extrapolate "who's on first," so to speak. They then turn over those so-called leads to the FBI for REAL processing, which wastes enormous ammounts of FBI manpower. The FBI says that the vast majority of what the NSA gave them led to either innocent citizens or to dead ends. The small ammount of remaining information that was useful was available from other, more reliable sources.


As to your hypothetical question (setting aside the "strawman" aspects of it), I don't know what rules the military plays by in other countries, but I would expect that this would potentially give the NSA probable cause if the cell phone received a call from the USA, and would therefore be eligible to get a FISA wiretap order without difficulty. The issue is that the NSA has been doing the tapping WITHOUT getting probable cause warrants (even though FISA allows them up to 72 hours after the fact to get the authorization). This leads me to conclude that the NSA knows it cannot get the warrant for the wiretap, which means it is either not justified (no probable cause) or is to spy on political enemies. In either case, the NSA should not be doing the spying.

[tn-guy]

35. Well, I guess I haven't been paying attention

I don't recall having read any accounts of exactly how the monitoring was being done. The technical details seem to be a bit sketchy to me. For all I knew NSA was using satellites to pick up cell phone and microwave transmissions from overseas, similar to what used to be done during the Cold War. I never heard that they were doing the monitoring from within domestic telco switches. Can you point me to a source on that?

Also, I never saw any reports that explained whether actual conversations were being monitored or if it was just traffic analysis along the lines of A called B, B called C, D and E. D then called E, F, G and A. Once again the details seem to be a bit undefined from the news accounts I've seen. If you have a link to anything concrete, I'd appreciate it.

[Mithras61]

41. Accounts of the monitoring have been...

all over the news. I'm pulling information from several sources together, no single one of which cites the SPECIFIC method being used (mostly citing national security interests as a reason to not give more details). You would have to read almost as extensively as I have to be able to correlate the information and to realize that for the NSA to tap the calls they admit they did would require access to several major switching stations, and that the calls being relayed through the switching stations were NOT just international calls, and that several groups of Quakers and anti-war groups have been identified as having had their calls routinely monitored.

There were several dozen other articles that I read, most of which contained only a idbit of information that wasn't in the other articles. Also, so many of the statements from national leaders of both parties have a little here & a little there, so you would have to read most of them as well. It's one of those things where if you aren't paying attention to all of it, you miss the big picture because the details aren't in any one single story.

[magellan]

19. Hayden's response shouldn't surprise anyone here

The GOP have made it abundantly clear that the only parts of the Constitution they'll defend are those which aren't an obstacle to Republican power. They don't give a damn about laws and rights; the way they've sewed up the legislative and judicial branches, they don't have to.

[LynnTheDem]

21. Jeebus fucking Cripes.

"appeared to be unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment..."

A GENERAL. Who SWORE AN OATH to uphold and defend the USC.

Jeebus fucking Cripes.

[donkeyotay]

22. Rule by memo

Obviously there's a memo somewhere that says The Unitary Executive and Commander in Chief can spy on anyone he thinks it's reasonable to spy on.

Here's 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 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."

[Supersedeas]

25. a reasonable search without a probable cause finding...hmmmm

[urlborg]

33. Missing the whole point people!

Now the unconstitutional 'blank-check-of-marquee' CIA/NSA/DIA Military Industrial Christian Fascist Mafia dictatorship is once again trying to change the subject about it's pervasive, pernicious and subversive reign of violent global tyranny, recently imported inside of America itself.

There is really no question that lawmakers have long allowed rough-shod pervasive criminal eavesdropping by these noble military industrial elitists into the private, personal, political, technical and proprietary affairs of once-private US businesses and individuals. The simple fact that they can spy upon anyone for any reason for 72 hours without reporting it and applying for a warrant is proof positive of the legal anointment of pervasive, secret, criminal-fascist tyranny.

It is important to notice that these Christian-Fascists, have no desire for peace and are in fact waging a global war of Politicide against Muslim Fascists, on behalf of Jewish Fascists who have stolen Jerusalem. Terrorism is always political, never merely criminal. Christian motivations for doing so are no gift to out-of-control Israel, they are designed to get the Muslims to launch the Christian's Armageddon Battle against Israel in order to conjure up some sort of a "Neo-Christ" for them, this well-planned second holocaust is merely collateral damage to them...

Now outraged Americans are being lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that Big Brother's 'terrorist spying program' is only listening to Americans when a 'terrorist' calls! So tell us all then just who are these 'terrorists'? Where is the list of these 'terrorists'? Where do these 'terrorists' live? What makes one more 'terrorist' than another? Where is the dividing line?

This is especially important when we consider that the only reason one would spy for more than 72 hours on someone without getting a warrant must and can only be because you do not want to reveal whom you are spying on and why you are spying on them!

Does it not follow that if you spied upon some US telephone answerer or caller speaking to someone associated with 'terrorists' ( a vague and non-descriptive standard if ever there was one ) that you wouldn't immediately follow up with spying on that local US parties domestic movements and communications? Do we no longer need a warrant for that either?

What good would such evidence be, other than a possible heads up about something that surely wouldn't be spoken of anyways?


And what of the vaunted 'checks and balances' they pretend to have in place? Who's checking on what? Who's checking on them? Who is checking up on us?


THE LEGAL RECORDS OF THE FISA COURT ARE THE ONLY LEGAL CHECK AND BALANCE AGAINST SUBVERSIVE AND UNCONTROLLABLE ABUSE OF THESE CRIMINAL POWERS, THERE CAN BE NO OTHER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!

America cannot become a totalitarian military dictatorship just because our crazy nut cases designed, armed, trained, supplied and then cooked up a pointless and irrational war with some foriegn nut cases.

[urlborg]

39. Of Course! They wouldn't want or need no stinkin' warrant..

Silly me, why would you need a warrant when you are just gonna send your unconstitutional blank-check-of-marquis CIA Mafiosi, your unconstitutional no-private-army military-industrial defence contractors or your unconstitutional no-standing-army NME(dod)/DIA Mafiosi over to collect these sane, reasonable peacenik 'terrorists' and spirit them in the middle of the night to Saudi Arabia or Egypt for imprisonment and torture? Our noble, imperial Christian Fascists don't need no stinkin judges to wage politicide.

I forgot that Thomas Paine, George Washington and Ben Franklin were 'terrorists' too LOL

[leesa]

37. Was he a horse breeder too?

[selmo7]

38. Here's the video -

With my commentary when I sent this out as an email this morning -

Well this is interesting – an NSA General INSISTS that Probable Cause is NOT in the Fourth Amendment –

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/FourthandWrongKOHayden.asx

(Windows media file)

So…..Ahhhhhh – light dawns on Marblehead - this explains EVERYTHING! NO WONDER we got ourselves into such a legal morass with respect to Americans spying on Americans – It seems there’s a large dose of denial or is it dementia? going on with the NSA general? OR – maybe it was just an honest mistake – well…. it’s always possible the CIA censors used their infamous black magic markers on the probable cause part when they handed out the Constitution to the NSA staff and geez, the po’er guys - they just didn’t know. OR as Keith Olbermann says – “Maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA.” Well perhaps when the Senate conducts the hearings they can call in the general and educate him on what the Constitution actually says – we can all hope.

As it is said by so many American spies, you CANNOT spy on American citizens – that’s is quite simply, because it is against the law and violates our Constitution. Or as it is often wisely stated: “the ends don’t justify the means” and our Constitution emboldens that philosophy and our American way of being and doing of which I am quite proud.

“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.” - Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

[young_at_heart]

40. He's an expert all right....an expert on arrogance.

He's one more to add to the list of people speaking arrogantly who have lost credibility in this administration. Condi and her inability to imagine a plane flying into a building, takes the prize.

[urlborg]

43. Ha Ha

Yeah, burning a "Riechstag" in accordance with Daniel Chapter 8 takes a great deal of finesse (and a bit of anthrax) to properly accomplish...