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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-122 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