| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2474
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:42 am: | 
|
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. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 757
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
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. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 485
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
But with words like "unreasonable" and "probable cause", that is where the trouble begins... |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2927
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
No, actually, the trouble began when the administration decided that it would be the sole and final arbiter of what constitutes probable cause and reasonable invasion of privacy. If it had gone the FISA route, this would never have been an issue. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2928
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
There is little evidence that the Canadian public is any more prone to being the 51st state than it has in the past. There is absolutely no interest shown in supporting US policy in Iraq, and while Harper has said nicer things about the US, he also still has to govern as a coalition party with three more liberal parties.
But what is very interesting is that:
a) the scandals affecting the long-ruling Liberal party actually took hold--in the past this stuff was pretty much ignored. That is very good for Canadian democracy;
b) the Bloc Quebecois lost not only nationally, but also within Quebec. Now THAT is a major sea-change; the first time in a long time that small-town Quebec was willing to consider a federal party over local concerns. The PQ had been lining up the Liberal Party with an eye to totally dominating Quebec politics; now the PQ has to wonder if it has the horses to do this. The new head of the PQ, a wonder boy coke using openly gay man, may have turned off more deeply conservative Quebecois than not. This may bode well for maintaining a federation as opposed to something a whole lot more unstable on our borders. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 760
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
It seems to me that phrases like probable cause and unreasonable are exactly what is needed. It gives the government leeway to make its case and it gives citizens the protection we require.
Interesting that you would have a problem with the bill of rights. It is one of the great things about America, what makes us a great nation. |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 37
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 1:29 pm: |
|
That is why a reviewing court is needed, to make sure the search is reasonable and based on probable cause. When the party seeking the search gets to determine on its own what is reasonable and what is probable cause there is no protection against abuse other than the "good faith" of the governmental authority. History has proven that is not enough, and that is why our constitution requires judicial oversight. And with FISA that is minimal, almost rubberstamp oversight. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12050
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:16 am: |
|
President Nixon said, "If the president does it, it's not illegal."
Bush seems to have adopted that attitude. I guess he has little use for the constitution.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2996
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
Ben Franklin hit the nail on the head (as usual) when he said...
 |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
The actual quote from Ben has been altered:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page