Michael Hayden: "probable cause" is not in the 4th Amendment

YOUTUBE ^ | JUNE 17, 2013 | mildlybrilliant

[LibLieSlayer]

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

LLS

[BykrBayb]

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

[abb]

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.

[BykrBayb]

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

[BykrBayb]

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

[xzins]

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.

[MestaMachine]

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.

[Girlene]

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.

[TurboZamboni]

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/

[MestaMachine]

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?

[upchuck]

He was an outstanding Air Force officer

I just dont get it

Peter Principle. Hayden has arrived.

[Diogenesis]

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

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

[Whenifhow]

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

[DH]

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.

[PapaNew]

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.

[Ben Ficklin]

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.

[xzins]

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

[BarnacleCenturion]

“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.

[Alas Babylon!]

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.

[freedomfiter2]

, 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.