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
Of course Hayden was condemned as an idiot: people actually think that he said that the Fourth Amendment does not mention the words “probable cause,” a statement that would make him not only stupid, but illiterate. But the headline does not describe what Hayden said, and probably was written by someone who didn’t understand Hayden’s argument.
I read the transcript posted by abb (it was the post to which I responded), and what Hayden said was that “probable cause” is not the standard for whether a search may be undertaken, and that the Fourth Amendment merely requires that the search be “reasonable.” Hayden is correct about that point; the Fourth Amendment covers two separate things—searches and seizures generally, and when the government may issue a warrant—and “probable cause” is only required for the issuance of warrants. Obviously Hayden should have explained that “probable cause” is the requirement for a warrant to be issued, not the requirement for a search or seizure, and that liberal judges illegitimately have been conflating those requirements for decades, but I assume that it was a brief interview and he couldn’t go on a long tangent about the original intent of the Framers and the abuses that the British authorities carried out against Americans due to the issuance of “general warrants” that gave British officers carte blanche to ransack through Americans’ houses and papers without fear of being sued for tresspass or damages.
Far from requiring warrants before any search or seizure, the Framers didn’t want warrants to be issued absent clear evidence; they placed restrictions on when warrants could be issued, because warrants allowed officers of the state to escape liability for their searches and seizures. But warrantless searches have always been permitted, so long as they are reasonable, and they occur every day.
I will reiterate that I am by no means saying that the NSA snooping is a “reasonable search.” But to assume that Michael Hayden doesn’t know how to read, as that headline writer did, is pretty silly. And for conservatives to accept as a given the misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment by liberal judges is pretty sad.
” 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.