Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Hayden: "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment
YOUTUBE ^ | JUNE 17, 2013 | mildlybrilliant

Posted on 06/17/2013 1:27:19 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER

Mind boggling ignorance!


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: cia; constitutionhayden; michaelhayden; nsa; probablecause; strictscrutiny; thelordrebukethee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

1 posted on 06/17/2013 1:27:21 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I can’t hear, SWAMPSNIPER. Can you give ne a synopses of what he said?


2 posted on 06/17/2013 1:46:20 AM PDT by MestaMachine (My caps work. You gotta earn them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

He was claiming that “probable cause” isn’t found at all in the 4th amendment. He got belligerent when corrected and refused to back down.


3 posted on 06/17/2013 1:51:20 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Here ya go.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/eavesdropping_general_reveals_shaky_grip_4th_amend.htm

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

Editor and Publisher | January 24 2006

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.

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.

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.

***

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. “

A new Gallup poll released Monday showed that 51% of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the U.S. without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program.


4 posted on 06/17/2013 1:56:50 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

He sure acted like he didn’t know the words “probable cause” were actually in the 4th Amendment. That is stunning. This man has served in many positions that directly dealt with/deal with the Constitution and yet seems clueless.


5 posted on 06/17/2013 2:04:58 AM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

Too many of them consider the oath they take to be just a silly ceremony.


6 posted on 06/17/2013 2:11:44 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8
He sure acted like he didn’t know the words “probable cause” were actually in the 4th Amendment. That is stunning.

He acted like he didn't know the words, because he didn'tknow the words. What an utter, ignorant fool this General is. An asinine, moronic buffoon. A skulking poltroon. All the interviewer had to do was stop the interview right then and there, and go to the trouble of actually quoting the Fourth Amendment.

God save us from such imbeciles as this supposed expert.

7 posted on 06/17/2013 2:12:49 AM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these here Boncentration Bamps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER; abb

Thank you both. The daft and the spurious strike again.


8 posted on 06/17/2013 2:16:34 AM PDT by MestaMachine (My caps work. You gotta earn them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

To the NSA, “probable cause” means “because we want to; that’s why!”.


9 posted on 06/17/2013 2:42:15 AM PDT by Flick Lives (We're going to be just like the old Soviet Union, but with free cell phones!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8
He was an outstanding Air Force officer

I just dont get it

I wondered where he went after NSA, this reads he is back inside the government working with these people

Apparently he went over to the dark side at some point, maybe even before he became head of NSA

SO maybe this massive govt intrusion into individual liberty did begin under “Bush and Cheney” but the intent of gathering and use of individual information under o’bama sure isn't the same

10 posted on 06/17/2013 3:23:52 AM PDT by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: abb

The construction that Washington, D.C., is bringing to the 4th Amendment is that any “reasonable” search is o.k., but unreasonable ones require a warrant. Furthermore, that a warrant is required to search and seize particular persons and conversations, etc., while massive searches of everybody of everything they say or write or transact, is o.k.

Clearly, the warrant is the method by which the reasonableness of the search is to be guaranteed. That is, the executive needs to go to a judge for the warrant. And, that warrant has to specify the particular person or thing to be searched and seized. No blanket searches and seizures.


11 posted on 06/17/2013 3:24:11 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

Wiretapping is such BS.

After a crime has been committed, the Fourth Amendment permits a warrant to be issued for the purpose of searching for and seizing the person(s) accused of the crime or the evidence concerning the crime. Someone has to testify before a judge that the person(s) or evidence exist at the place specified.

In order to solve our current problem (i.e. terrorism), other means than wiretapping must be used. For instance, stop importing terrorists, export the ones that are already here, and permit the people of this nation to speak out - loudly - against the enemy’s ideology.

Since our government is doing the precise opposite, one might assume that the intent is to make Americans so desperate that we’ll abandon the protection of the Fourth Amendment.


12 posted on 06/17/2013 3:29:06 AM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb; SWAMPSNIPER

He’s correct that the constitutional standard is “unreasonable search and seizure,” and that “probable cause” is only the standard in cases in which the government seeks a warrant. The Framers thought that warrants—used and abused by the British to search people’s homes without facing civil liability (the warrant would give immunity to the officer doing the seach)—were a bad thing that needed to be preconditioned on a high standard (thus “probable cause”) and required a certain level of specificity (the “general warrants” used by the British would not be allowed). But the Fourth Amendment, properly understood, does not require that all searches be preceded by a warrant, or even that there be probable cause before a search. It was liberal judges who conflated the unreasonable search prohibition with the probable cause requirement for warrants—liberal judges also confused the Fourth Amendment with the Fifth Amendment’s autoincrimination protection and created the ridiculous “Exclusionary Rule” from whole cloth.

I’m not saying that the guy is correct that the government’s phone-call-surveilance program meets the “reasonable search” requirement, but he is correct that the Constitution does not require that the government get a warrant first.


13 posted on 06/17/2013 3:36:37 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

In a way this is even worse because Hayden said this when he was in charge. The video date is 2006. Galling to have to be agreeing with Keith Olberman (on the video) ..


14 posted on 06/17/2013 3:50:08 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8
Typical bureaucratic appointee. He's there to give the agency a veneer of respectability, but he doesn't even know the 4th Amendment.

Too many FReepers think the US military is going to stand with us. Hayden's the perfect example. He knows where his bread is buttered and the US Constitution doesn't pay his mortgage.

15 posted on 06/17/2013 3:53:37 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: abb

There’s a general who is

A. A criminal military coup maker

or

B: A retard who cannot teach himself a oneliner.


16 posted on 06/17/2013 4:01:41 AM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (Obama equals Osama))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD; SWAMPSNIPER; MestaMachine; silverleaf; sargon

Too many FReepers think the US military is going to stand with us. Hayden's the perfect example. He knows where his bread is buttered and the US Constitution doesn't pay his mortgage.

And when he retires, he will have his taxpayer-funded pension, his taxpayer-funded health care for life, and his dacha by the lake, just as his Soviet counterparts did in a bygone era.

Remember this quote:

"Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve." ~ Val Jarrett, the "Martin Bormann" of the Obamanation

17 posted on 06/17/2013 4:11:05 AM PDT by Old Sarge (My "KMA List" is growing daily...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
This reminds me of the Star Trek - The New Generation episode where Picard is kidnapped and an alien tries to break him, telling him to 'see' five lights, when there were only four being displayed.

It's as if the far left wishes to get us to say that things that are clearly there, are not.

18 posted on 06/17/2013 4:15:02 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("AP" clearly stands for American Pravda. Our news media has become completely and proudly Soviet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; SWAMPSNIPER

He’s already been condemned as one of the most stupid people on earth. And here you come along and say he made a valid point.

The words probable cause are in the 4th amendment, and his statement implies the actual words are not even in there.

So that must be why he’s considered to be so stupid.

Your point seems to be, how is the 4th amendment applied to situations? And on that, you are saying he made a valid point.

Do I have that right?

Gotta admit, on the point of whether the words probable cause are in there, he did sound stupid.

Just for the record, I don’t think Michael Hayden is stupid. Doesn’t mean I’m on board with everything he says.

VP Cheney isn’t stupid, either. Doesn’t mean I agree with his recent pronouncements on this subject.

One thing I note with amusement. Hayden left himself and “out”, of sorts, I think.

He said, “I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to be one”.

LOL


19 posted on 06/17/2013 4:15:22 AM PDT by txrangerette ("...hold to the truth; speak without fear". - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

A couple of key points:

This was January 23rd 2006, just after Hayden moved on from NSA.

As Director of the NSA from 1999-2005, Hayden implemented the post-9/11 telephone surveillance programs.

This National Press Club event in January 2005 was just as the Bush-era “Warrantless Wiretapping” scandal was starting to break.

This was prior to the amendments to the FISA law in 2008.

So Hayden is defending the Bush program at this point, he is not defending the post “Warrantless Wiretapping” program after 2007, the post FISA amendments after 2008, or the Obama program after 2009.


20 posted on 06/17/2013 4:19:00 AM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I am glad that I have minds like Mark Levin to get my legal explanations from and not you.

LLS


21 posted on 06/17/2013 4:21:06 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

OMG, why is he dressed up as a four star general?!


22 posted on 06/17/2013 4:25:00 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER; MestaMachine

Here’s a possibility on a compromise. If “they” can snoop on our communications and whereabouts anytime, anyplace, how about if we can do the same to them?

GPS locators on ALL cop cars, with a public website. Webcams in ALL public officials’ offices. ALL electronic communications among politicians done in open chat.

And so on.


23 posted on 06/17/2013 4:26:34 AM PDT by abb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flick Lives

Probably ‘cause they’re just going to do it anyway.


24 posted on 06/17/2013 4:32:12 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Cheney is defending what obama is doing with this unconstitutional surveillance. What makes you so sure his hands are clean?


25 posted on 06/17/2013 4:37:07 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8; P-Marlowe

Even if he were to come back and say that their interpretation of “probable cause” is “reasonably believe”, then they’d still be wrong. I susayspect, however, that is what they’ve determined.

Probable is a mathematical statement that says a thing is highly likely to be true.

Cause refers, iirc, to the discussion of causation, that A is a result of B and is a highly likely direct result.

We are talking about a highly probably direct causation of evidence and not someone’s “belief” at all. And reasonable is a lower standard than probable.


26 posted on 06/17/2013 4:38:08 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: abb

Sure. I’D go for that, but they certainly never would. These bastiches are PUBLIC officials. I’m not. We have more right to be watching them than they EVER have watching us. AND we PAY them to screw with us on top of that.


27 posted on 06/17/2013 4:40:28 AM PDT by MestaMachine (My caps work. You gotta earn them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Flick Lives
To the NSA, “probable cause” means “because we want to; that’s why!”.

Exactly. Whether it's Hayden, or Cheney, or Holder...they are all saying what they are doing is fine because they are reasonable people, they are just trying to keep the country secure, they mean no harm, so if you don't go along with them or expose their secrets.......you are a traitor.

Their actions and their defense of their actions prove that power does corrupt.

Hayden should be ashamed of himself for being so ignorant.
28 posted on 06/17/2013 4:44:10 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: abb

The gubmint is free to listen to your phone calls and read your emails ...since these were not around at the time the 4th Amendment was incorporated. (wearing my leftard hat)

And apparently that’s how The Regime reads it:

Justice Department Expands Hunt for Data on Cellphones
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/justice-department-expands-hunt-for-data-on-cellphones/

Obama’s NSA eavesdropping goes beyond that of Bush... after campaigning on the promise of: “ No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me!”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

headlines read:” NSA Exceeds Legal Limits In Eavesdropping Program” , “ U.S. phone intercepts go beyond legal limits” , and “NSA Found Improperly Spying on Americans”.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123985123667923961.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE53F09820090416
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/justice-dept-nsa-improperly-spied-americans/


29 posted on 06/17/2013 4:45:49 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: magellan

Whatever and whenever, the man had NO GRASP of the fourth amendment. How in the hell do you take an oath to uphold the Constitution if you don’t even know what it says?


30 posted on 06/17/2013 4:47:39 AM PDT by MestaMachine (My caps work. You gotta earn them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
He was an outstanding Air Force officer

I just dont get it

Peter Principle. Hayden has arrived.

31 posted on 06/17/2013 4:50:22 AM PDT by upchuck (To the faceless, jack-booted government bureaucrat who just scanned this post: SCREW YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
"He got belligerent when corrected and refused to back down."

Maybe he thinks they can glibly remove data from the US Contitution, too?

32 posted on 06/17/2013 4:56:05 AM PDT by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: abb

Jones vs US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones_%282012%29

Court Case Asks if ‘Big Brother’ Is Spelled GPS
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11gps.html?_r=0


33 posted on 06/17/2013 4:59:44 AM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

Typical government worker (Private or military) doing what they are TOLD to do rather than actually knowing real laws and constitutional rights.

I never cite anything in a debate or disclosure unless I can back myself up with page and paragraph of what I am stating.

I would bet that no more than 10% of any government worker could do that....much more...military leaders.


34 posted on 06/17/2013 5:00:49 AM PDT by DH (Once the tainted finger of government touches anything the rot begins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
Mr. Hayden, the presumption in the Constitution is FOR the rights of the individual and AGAINST government power. If it is not an enumerated government power, if the Constitution is silent, the presumption is it is NOT a government power (as explained in the 10th Amendment). Intrusion into people's privacy is constitutionally presumed NOT a government power. It is up to YOU Mr. Hayden to show where the Constitution gives you the power to do what you've done. The absence of wording in the Constitution or the Amendments is a presumption AGAINST, not for, government power, Mr Hayden.

BTW and FYI, Mr. Hayden, unreasonable searches and seizures IS in the 4th Amendment which by settled law includes probable cause for government searches and seizures.

Next.

35 posted on 06/17/2013 5:05:20 AM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Tammy8; SWAMPSNIPER
It doesn't have anything to do with the difference between reasonable and probable.

In this particular situation Article 2 of the Constitution overrides the 4th Amendment.

You're trying to revive a leftwing argument that was shot down in 2006.

I expect Russ Feingold to show up on this thread any minute now.

36 posted on 06/17/2013 5:06:46 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Are you defending Hayden’s interpretation of the 4th amendment? If so, I’m really surprised.


37 posted on 06/17/2013 5:12:10 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

“The constitutional standard is “reasonable.” And we believe — I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable.”

LMAO. We are so screwed.

He clearly doesn’t think a warrant is even needed as long as the violation of privacy is ‘reasonable’.

And he decides what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.

In other words, he thinks like a tyrant.


38 posted on 06/17/2013 5:18:43 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
Here's the prolem right here:

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.

He was just following orders.


39 posted on 06/17/2013 5:19:28 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

, but he is correct that the Constitution does not require that the government get a warrant first.

The fourth Amendment quoted above clearly states that probable cause is required for a warrant to be issued. There is nothing in the amendment that indicates that there is ever a situation that allows a search or seizure without a warrant.


40 posted on 06/17/2013 5:21:05 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins

What I think and what you think are irrelevant.
Its what the court thinks.


41 posted on 06/17/2013 5:25:29 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

BTTT


42 posted on 06/17/2013 5:33:48 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Support Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

“What I think and what you think are irrelevant.
Its what the court thinks.”

If he’s not getting warrants there is no court involved here. He’ll just do whatever he thinks is reasonable and there will be no oversight because it’s all classified.


43 posted on 06/17/2013 5:39:15 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
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.

So, once again, Eric Holder (and thus, Obama) has approved this subversion.

44 posted on 06/17/2013 5:40:15 AM PDT by Bronzewound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

Another AF General with a plexiglass stomach so he can see where he’s going. Damn this gets old. The standard for being a General Officer used to be that you were a commander of a line unit, somewhere...fighter squadron, airlift wing, etc. You get the picture. Guess how many line units this idiot has commanded. None. He’s been nothing but a staff pute his whole military career.


45 posted on 06/17/2013 5:41:41 AM PDT by Portcall24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
"If he's not getting warrants....."

He's not there and hasn't been there since 2005.

46 posted on 06/17/2013 5:47:23 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sargon
What an utter, ignorant fool this General is

The General is not stupid and he is not ignorant. He knows what the Constitution says and he knows what it means. He doesn't care. He is playing a lawyer's word game to sell tyranny. There are a lot of people that buy into it.

47 posted on 06/17/2013 5:49:05 AM PDT by Count of Monte Fisto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

I had no idea Gen Hayden went to public school.


48 posted on 06/17/2013 5:51:55 AM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

“He’s not there and hasn’t been there since 2005.”

Well, that’s what I thought as well. But he is speaking in the present tense:

“I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we’re doing is reasonable”

So he is either delusional or never really left.


49 posted on 06/17/2013 5:56:43 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Redmen4ever

Bump!


50 posted on 06/17/2013 5:57:59 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson