From a Lawyer (Re: How to Convince Your Friends Bush's Wiretapping Is Bad)

[nashuaadvocate]

Everyone is looking for a pithy way to talk about these warrantless domestic wire-taps and why a) they violate our liberties, but ALSO b) they don't work, and c) there's no reason to use them except to engage in nefarious exercises of Big Government authority.

The answer, my friends (and this coming from a criminal attorney) is "probable cause."

If you're a politician or an activist or simply a concerned citizen and you're trying to convince friends and acquaintances or constituents as to why the President's program is both illegal AND counter-productive--i.e., makes us less safe--and you're NOT using the phrase "probable cause" to make your point, you've lost the argument already.

Understanding what probable cause actually means is the key to bringing down this President on this issue--because, in short, probable cause is a concept so gloriously simple it's survived intact for over 200 years and everyone (whether they know it or not) inherently "gets" the idea.

I have laid out what we progressives should be saying to people here.

It's one simple, easy paragraph, but I think it's worth everyone's time to read. I've been watching the news for weeks now waiting for someone to start talking about probable cause--a COMMON SENSE concept, by the way, not an overly-legalistic one--and no one's said boo about it.

Which is why the President is winning this debate, or at least making noises about starting to do so. So let's start doing this right, people! And tell your friends, too!

[democrank]

1. Thanks so much for this.

Easy to understand....probable cause.

What a wide chasm there is between the opposing wiretap camps. Perhaps the other side believes that the government would never overstep its legal bounds, or (I`ve heard this one) anyone who is suspect must be guilty.

[spuddonna]

2. This is excellent! Thank you! K&R! n/t

[splat@14]

3. Thx - copied and emailed to a bunch! Voted & Kicked.

[Libby2]

4. Wonderful !!

I'm going to read it again.
Thank you.

[Flying Dream Blues]

5. Thanks, I hope everyone reads and uses. K&R! nt

[bear425]

6. It's really worth reading the whole post at your link.

Very well written argument and easily understood. Thanks for posting.

[PDittie]

7. Your blog is one of my favorites.

Thanks for all you do.

[LiberalAndProud]

8. Probable cause. Catchy tune!

[berni_mccoy]

9. The only problem I see with this argument

Is that over half the population ISN'T REASONABLE. The *reasonable* persons are currently in the minority. The reasonless ones are currently invading every aspect of government and turning the vast majority of Americans into running scared morons praying for rapture.

[dave29]

10. as in "without probable cause, the President probably caused

his own impeachment"

[enough]

11. Very important point, and a good explanation,

but, please, it is NOT "one simple, easy paragraph." It would be eaiser to follow if divided into three or four paragraphs. No need to change a word of it.

Nominating. Thanks!

[Just Me]

12. Yeah,...for those who don't get Bush COMMITTED A DAMN CRIME!!!

:grr: What the hell is wrong with people these days? Have they completely lost their senses?

* Bush committed a federal crime!
* Bush violated the Constitution and his oath of office!
* Bush further abused his power (like a friggin' dictator)!
* Probable cause no longer has to exist for your home to be invaded by the government!

Those who are okay with the foregoing are okay with dictatorship and fascism. They're either anti-American or have a serious psychological problem. IMHO.

[400Years]

13. that's a long ass "paragraph"

:evilgrin:

[samhsarah]

14. K&R Thanks!

[nashuaadvocate]

15. Thanks, all. (And yes, it *is* a long paragraph! :-) nm

[DemReadingDU]

16. Gen Michael Hayden's remarks 1/23/06

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.

http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.html



...Um, Gen Hayden, it's probable cause
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

[nashuaadvocate]

17. DRD, That's it!

Do you see what he's doing there?

Republicans don't want to talk about probable cause, they want to talk about "reasonableness." Why? Because they think they can win that argument--largely because reasonableness is an amorphous term which actually equates to probable cause but allows Republicans to pretend it doesn't. Is it "reasonable" to wiretap terrorists, the President asks? Yes! But is it "reasonable" to wiretap individuals without any reasonable basis to believe they're terrorists? No!

Thanks for the link...!
S.

[emdee]

18. Thank you very very much.

kick!
emdee

[Dinger]

19. Excellent - Thank You!

I'm not a lawyer, but I some people I plan to send this to, in hard copy:)

[Iowa]

20. K&R

I'll be passing a link to your article on to everyone I know. Cuts right through all the bullshit. Great post!