graysmoke February 09, 2006
THE IV AMENDMENT
How is it that the hotshots at NSA do not understand the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights in our Constitution?
It is only one sentence long.
Here it is:
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.
____________________________________________________
That's it...........but it seems they must have a copy that was redacted, missing the clause regarding probable cause and just mentioning "reasonableness" as the only criteria required to deprive citizens of all the guarantees wrapped in this constitutional sentence that encompasses so much that we hold sacred. Impositions implemented by the surveillance programs violate this mandate.
A remedial course on the Bill of Rights with special emphasis on the Fourth seems to be direly needed.
Maybe then we could expect compliance. And we'd be spared the spectacle of a figure so far up the totem pole as Gen. Hayden to keep his foot where it belongs.
snip:
Warrantless wiretapping
The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy arose when the New York Times revealed on December 16, 2005 that the agency had been eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and other people within the U.S. without seeking warrants from a special court, as ostensibly required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Hayden received personal criticism for his role in the controversy when he spoke at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 23, 2006 to defend the practice of warrantless surveillance. During the question and answer period following his speech, Hayden appeared to deny that a "probable cause" standard is contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution --which limits the government's ability to conduct searches and, by extension, surveillance.
Knight Ridder reporter Jonathan Landay prefaced a question by noting 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." Hayden responded: "No, actually--the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.... That's what it says." When Landay continued, "But does it not say probable--" Hayden said: "No. The amendment says...unreasonable search and seizure."
In fact, the amendment refers to both "unreasonable searches and seizures" and "probable cause."
Later, responding to Landay's question, Hayden stated:
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.
Writing up the exchange, the online magazine Editor & Publisher (January 23, 2006) wrote that Hayden "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."
___________________________________________________
The above is from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden
I personally saw the live broadcast on C-Span of Hayden's speech and can vouch for the above report being accurate.
Since this, there have been repeated instances of the administration's misconstrued interpretation of this important amendment - shouldn't we let them know, Wishing Won't Make It So?
Or repetition either.
