Posted on 06/17/2013 1:27:19 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
Mind boggling ignorance!
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.Hayden also states that, "if there's one amendment that the people at the NSA know it's the 4th Amendment". Which if true, means they're deliberately ignoring it.
“The example that was used to explain this came up a while ago. After the DC Beltway sniper started shooting people, they would set up roadblocks and look in each vehicle as it went by. That was “reasonble” even though there were no warrants.”
“As a general rule when seeking an assessment on judgment matters like this, the question should be settled in court with a jury of “We, the People” to assess the “reasonableness” of these searches.”
4th amendment ping
No, no, and no.
The 4th protects against “unreasonable search and seizure” by making law enforcement present a warrant to a judge. The judge, supposedly, decides weather the search is reasonable or not and signs the warrant. If he determines it is unreasonable then it doesn’t get signed. Just because it says “unreasonable” searches doesn’t give law enforcement the power to search just because they think the search is reasonable. And, just because law enforcement and the government has been violating the 4th for years doesn’t make it lawful or Constitutional.
Why bother with a warrant in the first place? Why would a warrant even be mentioned? Are you saying that you only need a warrant if the search is in fact unreasonable?
He’s wrong, period. Just because he thinks it’s a good idea, does not make it legal.
Look, FISA clearly states that a warrant is required for the surveillance of American citizens. This isn’t an abstract discussion about the meaning of the 4th amendment.
Your example from the colonial period actually reinforces the idea that a warrant would be required in this case but that’s beside the point. There is a law that clearly states that a warrant is required for the surveillance of American citizens. That is all.
I suggest that you do some reading on the history of the Fourth Amendment, and on searches and seizures generally, before asserting that warrants are required before a search is conducted.
You are correct that just because the officer believes that a search is “reasonable” does not, in and of itself, make it constitutional; the person searched certainly can have an opinion different from that of the officer, and if he is charged with a crime the reasonableness of the search will be determined by the judicial system. Unfortunately, because of liberal judges, only when the cops actually find evidence of a crime in a search does the reasonableness of the search become an issue, and cops are free to harass innocent citizens all day long without any repercussions.
“Why bother with a warrant in the first place?” Because if the officer has a warrant no one can say “Boo” to him, and he is immune from any possible claim. The Framers wanted to limit the ability of officers to obtain warrants, given the abuses that took place when British authorities would issue “general warrants” that allowed cops to search whatever they wanted with no repercussions. That’s why the Fourth Amendment has such strict requirements for being able to obtain a warrant: probable cause, and specificity of the place to be searched and the thing or person to be seized.
The difference is.... you trust Hayden and I know better than to trust anyone working in or for our government today. There are only a handful of elected officials that I do trust. Most of the government officials testifying before Congress have been caught lying and rationalizing and clintonizing their testimony.
LLS
“Look, FISA clearly states that a warrant is required for the surveillance of American citizens.”
“This isn’t an abstract discussion about the meaning of the 4th amendment.”
A four star General is essentially a politician, a SSgt is not. The people in the military with guns, and greater numbers, will be on our side.
I don’t “trust Hayden”; as I make clear in my post #70, I don’t know him from Adam (although if Dick Cheney vouches for him he can’t be all bad). Maybe Hayden is a liar, but if so he inadvertently told the truth about the probable cause requirement not applying to searches generally. My own understanding of the Fourth Amendment predates this article and my reading Hayden’s (uneloquent) explanation byalmost 20 years.
That whole “probable cause” thing is a red herring that is playing into Obama’s hands. The more conservatives harp about the lack of compliance with an inapplicable standard, the easier it will be for Obama to skate on the real issue, which is whether the metadata searches were “reasonable” pursuant to the Fourth Amendment.
That should make those who support the NSA’s overreach feel a lot better. This general is only walking the line. Everything is tied right back into a government overreach and the waste to corruption. We have some name calling and referring to others as they speak out because they are wanting to protect the U.S. constitution. Now, all of a sudden, our privacy rights are being taken away. You have to be cautious because there are imposers among us. Why people feel comfortable in trusting a government with your constitutional rights is a wrong path to be on. With Obama, Snowden and the corruption in D.C., we have a fair reason to be skeptical.
->>I will stand up for the truth and not allow well meaning conservatives to spread the false notion that the Fourth Amendment prohibits searches without probable cause or without a prior warrant.
So, it was over one million cases that our government felt compelled to investigate while they proved this scenario in a secret court that the NSA had probable cause for millions of warrants (which now it’s legal as they claim it is). How do you explain the dragnet involving innocent citizens. I want to be protected but why this overreach. Is it worth our liberties. I think it’s too late unless millions insist to stop this overreach of prism.
I'm certainly aware of that. And that's the slippery slope when people and courts can't understand in plain language just what the Constitution says. Just like the 2nd amendment..but that's for another discussion.
If a cop comes to your front door and wants to come in “just to look around” you can tell him to get screwed, get a warrant. Same if you get pulled over. No, get a warrant.
The 4th amendment is not very long. It's not full of legalese, The Bill of Rights were written very simply so simple people like me can understand it. It's attorneys and courts that make it complicated.
So, you and I may disagree. And I'm sure there are thousands and thousands of cases and decisions using thousands and thousands of pages of BS to explain a simple little amendment that guarantees our rights. I'll just read it like it is written and go from there. "That’s why the Fourth Amendment has such strict requirements for being able to obtain a warrant: probable cause, and specificity of the place to be searched and the thing or person to be seized." It was supposed to be strict. I'm pretty sure now most judges just rubber stamp any warrant, but that's beside the point. I don't understand your point actually. So, since it's (the warrants) requirements are so strict, then the government shouldn't have to be bothered? Again, I don't claim to be as smart as a "constitutional law professor", but I can read. I've found that a lot of very smart people have very little common sense. And of course the old adage applies "if you can't explain it then baffle'em with bull shit." I haven't looked but I'm pretty sure a required class in law school is "bull shitting 101"
There is no reason... no rationalization... no Constitutional provisions for our government to record and archive all of our phone calls, emails and electronic communications and then search those records at any time they deem necessary and for any reason that any bureaucrat with access to them wishes... whether for nefarious reasons or not. Our government says that this is fine and that they have been doing it for years and several elected Senators of the communist party have agreed. The problem is that these records are being used to suppress rights... keep elections corrupt and in the progressive corner and to destroy lives as harry reid and others wish to do.This is just Germany 1938.
LLS
A few historical examples exist of Generals who were true Americans who understood and respected the Constitution. Washington, Grant, Robert E. Lee, and Ike come to mind.
But the modern flag officers are petty tyrants that are revel in their unquestioned dictatorial military role, and wish to translate it into society as a whole.
And though they have advanced degrees in international law, they have only a cursory understanding of the constitution.
And this is because they simply do not view it as their roadmap,, period.
Man if a general ever deserved to be removed from his post, this one does.
” Hayden left himself and “out”, of sorts, I think.
He said, “I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to be one”.
That’s not an out, it’s cowardly and bully style evasion of his sworn duty. It is as though a cop kicked in your front door and started rummaging through your cell phone. When you protest that this is an unconstitutional search, he says “I’m not a lawyer and I don’t want to be one.”
If he is too stupid to read 10 amendments, only about half of which normally would directly apply to his job, then he should go back to his safe life in the USAF where he can simply issue orders to people who have contracted to obey them.
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.