Frog Prince
2006-05-16 12:37:18 UTC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1125139
There is speculation that President Bush is planning to nominate General
Michael Hayden to serve as the next director of the CIA tomorrow. Hayden,
the former Director of the NSA and the Principal Deputy Director of National
Intelligence, seems like a pleasant fellow. I have no doubt that he is
sincere in his patriotism. However, I think that the DCI should be familiar
with the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
On Monday, January 23, 2006, General Hayden met with the National Press Club
to discuss concerns about the Bush administration's domestic spying policy.
Before we take a closer look at some of the Q&A from that day, let's review
Amendment 4 to the Constitution of the United States.
Amendment 4: 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 Warrents 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.
Now, to the press conference, in which General Hayden was attempting to
answer journalists' questions about how the administration's domestic spying
program appears to violate the 4th amendment. James Bamford asked General
Hayden two questions towards the end of the conference.
JB: ... Just to clarify sort of what's been said ... the change from going
around the FISA law was to -- one of them was to lower the standard from
what they call for, which is basically probable cause to a reasonable basis;
and then to take it away from a federal court judge, the FISA court judge,
and hand it over to a shift supervisor at NSA. Is that what we're talking
about here -- just for clarification?
GH: You got most of it right. The people who make the judgement, and the one
you just referred to, there are only a handful of people at NSA who can make
that decision. ... So in military terms, a senior colonel or general ooficer
equivalent; and in professional terms, the people who know more about this
than anyone else.
JB: Well, no, that wasn't the real question. The question I was asking,
though, was since you lowered the standard, doesn't that decrease the
protections of the U.S. citizens? ...
GH: ... I think you've accurately described the criteria under which this
operates, and I think I at least tried to accurately describe a changed
circumstance, threat to the nation, and why this approach -- limited,
focused -- has been effective.
(At this point, the fellow serving as moderator recognized that James
Bamford was not the person for General Hayden to be questioned by, if the
"lower standards" issue was to be avoided. Mr. Hill announced, "Final
question," and picked on Jonathan Landay from Knight Ridder.)
JL: ... 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 --
GH: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against
unreasonable search and seizure.
JL: But the --
GH: That's what it says.
JL: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GH:The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
JL: But does it not say probable --
GH: No. The amendment says --
JL: The court standard, the legal standard --
GH: --unreasonable search and seizure.
This press conference was filmed. Again, while no one questions that General
Hayden is a good man, and a patriot, it was clear that he was not familiar
enough with the Fourth Amendment to recognize a quote from it when he heard
it. This may, in part, explain why he did not recognize that the NSA's
domestic spying program was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The news
media, and progressives and liberals, should be using this film and the
transcript to remind the American public, and the Congress, why General
Hayden is not the correct choice for the position of Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency
There is speculation that President Bush is planning to nominate General
Michael Hayden to serve as the next director of the CIA tomorrow. Hayden,
the former Director of the NSA and the Principal Deputy Director of National
Intelligence, seems like a pleasant fellow. I have no doubt that he is
sincere in his patriotism. However, I think that the DCI should be familiar
with the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
On Monday, January 23, 2006, General Hayden met with the National Press Club
to discuss concerns about the Bush administration's domestic spying policy.
Before we take a closer look at some of the Q&A from that day, let's review
Amendment 4 to the Constitution of the United States.
Amendment 4: 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 Warrents 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.
Now, to the press conference, in which General Hayden was attempting to
answer journalists' questions about how the administration's domestic spying
program appears to violate the 4th amendment. James Bamford asked General
Hayden two questions towards the end of the conference.
JB: ... Just to clarify sort of what's been said ... the change from going
around the FISA law was to -- one of them was to lower the standard from
what they call for, which is basically probable cause to a reasonable basis;
and then to take it away from a federal court judge, the FISA court judge,
and hand it over to a shift supervisor at NSA. Is that what we're talking
about here -- just for clarification?
GH: You got most of it right. The people who make the judgement, and the one
you just referred to, there are only a handful of people at NSA who can make
that decision. ... So in military terms, a senior colonel or general ooficer
equivalent; and in professional terms, the people who know more about this
than anyone else.
JB: Well, no, that wasn't the real question. The question I was asking,
though, was since you lowered the standard, doesn't that decrease the
protections of the U.S. citizens? ...
GH: ... I think you've accurately described the criteria under which this
operates, and I think I at least tried to accurately describe a changed
circumstance, threat to the nation, and why this approach -- limited,
focused -- has been effective.
(At this point, the fellow serving as moderator recognized that James
Bamford was not the person for General Hayden to be questioned by, if the
"lower standards" issue was to be avoided. Mr. Hill announced, "Final
question," and picked on Jonathan Landay from Knight Ridder.)
JL: ... 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 --
GH: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against
unreasonable search and seizure.
JL: But the --
GH: That's what it says.
JL: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GH:The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
JL: But does it not say probable --
GH: No. The amendment says --
JL: The court standard, the legal standard --
GH: --unreasonable search and seizure.
This press conference was filmed. Again, while no one questions that General
Hayden is a good man, and a patriot, it was clear that he was not familiar
enough with the Fourth Amendment to recognize a quote from it when he heard
it. This may, in part, explain why he did not recognize that the NSA's
domestic spying program was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The news
media, and progressives and liberals, should be using this film and the
transcript to remind the American public, and the Congress, why General
Hayden is not the correct choice for the position of Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency