The people who are spying on you.

[Suff]

This is direct from the Director of National Intelligence' WWW site. It occurred today. I'd suspect if you click on the link you'll be data-mined so click on your own risk if you value your privacy.

http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_012306.html






Today, we have General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, who will talk about the recent controversy surrounding the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of communications of suspected al Qaeda terrorists.

General Hayden, who's been in this position since last April, is currently the highest ranking military intelligence officer in the armed services, and he also knows a little something about this controversy because in his previous life he was NSA director when the NSA monitoring program began in 2000 -- 2001, sorry. ( freudian slip? :lol: )
-----------------------------------------------------------


Here we go.

QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. 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.


GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says!!


LANDAY: But the Constitutional measure is probable cause, I believe?

GEN. HAYDEN: The fourth amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.


LANDAY: But does it not say probable -- (INTERUPPTED BY THE GENERAL)

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure



The General continued
GEN. HAYDEN . . . Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment.
And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, :D and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable."



Here's my 4th amendment right (and yours if you want it) straight from the Constitution


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..


---------------------------------------------
I refer you back to the 2nd paragraph


General Hayden, who's been in this position since last April, is currently the highest ranking military intelligence officer in the armed services, and he also knows a little something about this controversy because in his previous life he was NSA director when the NSA monitoring program began in 2000

The guy does'nt even know what the Constitution says! He is the highest ranking Military Intelligence officer in our military.
:lol: :D :lol:

[JustRalph]

The guy does'nt even know what the Constitution says! He is the highest ranking Military Intelligence officer in our military.
:lol: :D :lol:

I fail to see the error in his comments. He didn't try to quote the 4th amendment? He stated his position as it relates to the 4th amendment. Because the reporter was referring to one portion doesn't mean the Gen. was addressing his point exactly. The Gen. stated his position. And many of us agree with him..............

[Suff]

I fail to see the error in his comments. ......

Ok... Then let me help you. The constitutional standard for a search is "probable cause".


The 4th Amendment
That is one sentence with one conclusion. The constitutional standard for searching an American Citizen is Probable Cause. Period.

[Suff]

I'm having flashbacks of


it depends what your defintion of "is" is.

Truly nonsense

[Tom]

The 4th Amendment
That is one sentence with one conclusion. The constitutional standard for searching an American Citizen is Probable Cause. Period.

Oopps. That nagging little ambiguity in reading the ammendments rears its ugly head again. I refer you to freedom of religion and gun control.

Show me where it says seperation of Church and state in that ammendment. Show me where it allows a wating period for gun purchases, or where certain guns are outlowed. I believe the phrasology used was "shall pass NO law...."

[Tom]

A guy gets a phone call from a suspected terrorist in Pakistan - you don't think that might creep into the probable cause area?

[ljb]

The spinmeisters are going strong here. Trying to convince the American public that this illegal wiretapping was/is the right thing to do. There are probably no Americans that don't believe our government should do everything it can to catch and prosecute these terrorist thugs. The real question here should be:
Why did this administration do this wiretapping illegally? Do they have something to hide? or do they just feel they are above the law ? as Lefty would say, hmmm?

[Suff]

Oopps. That nagging little ambiguity in reading the ammendments rears its ugly head again. I refer you to freedom of religion and gun control.

Show me where it says seperation of Church and state in that ammendment. Show me where it allows a wating period for gun purchases, or where certain guns are outlowed. I believe the phrasology used was "shall pass NO law...."

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment, more than anything else, virtually assures no foriegn entity can invade America.

I'm not defending any Political partys here. I'm talking about the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution.

[Suff]

A guy gets a phone call from a suspected terrorist in Pakistan - you don't think that might creep into the probable cause area?

Absolutley!! And I want that call moderated. I want any call from a suspected Terrorist Red Flagged.

Bush can (and shoud have) (and still can)... get the law modified. If he wants "big tent" powers to listen to international calls......he can do 1 of 2 things.

Go to FISA with his list of 10,000 suspects...and say.. I want a warrant for all 10 grand.

If he needs more latitude...he can go to congress and modify existing rules.

What he cannot do is SPY on American Citizens without a check and balance.

Its really puzzling to see Americans take the Constitution so lightly.

I don't get it? If we don't have that...then who are we?

[lsbets]

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment, more than anything else, virtually assures no foriegn entity can invade America.


And also goes a long way to ensuring our own government really never goes way too far.

[Snag]

I for one am not ready to make any assumptions with this issue and I'll tell you why!

We do not know what, how, or on what basis the NSA is gathering info. Many references have been made to use of the telephone. There are many ways of sending information in todays world. Those jumping to a conclusion here may have to "rewrite" their positions in the near future. Don't forget, many people were informed and given information before the NSA proceded.

It may be time to wait and see before jumping off either side of the cliff.

[JustRalph]

I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment, more than anything else, virtually assures no foriegn entity can invade America.

You still miss the Generals point. Or maybe you just prefer to ignore it. No big deal. But, he is discussing one part of the 4th amendment, and the reporter is discussing another.

On the 2nd Amendment, it is there so that we can shoot congressmen and our government leaders if need be. The national defense is taken care of in other parts of the constitution. Basically to defend us from our own government.

[lsbets]

Careful Snag - if you say you want all the fatcs before you jump to a conclusion, people will say you blindly support Bush. LOL

[JustRalph]

Btw, The government is not spying on me.

The title of the thread is

"The people who are spying on you"

You must have ties to a terrorist organization or its members to be a target of this program. The title of this thread is misleading.............

[kenwoodallpromos]

The courts have already decided that in certain situations a warrant will cause too big a delay, so probable cause in those cases is determined by the authority doing the search. That is why arrestees are frisked without a warrant and W/O specific probable cause. House-to-house searches to find jail escapees is another example, as is bag searches for explosives. A little common sense is good as long as it is only a little! The Google thing was too much, warrant or not.

[ljb]

Btw, The government is not spying on me.

The title of the thread is

"The people who are spying on you"

You must have ties to a terrorist organization or its members to be a target of this program. The title of this thread is misleading.............
Are you sure ?
Perhaps this should be on another thread JR but, the repubs are running the country and the repubs are running ohio. I just read the poverty rate went up 17 percent in ohio between 2000 and 2004. (latest data available) Hmmmm

[JustRalph]

I just read the poverty rate went up 17 percent in ohio between 2000 and 2004. (latest data available) Hmmmm

yep, that is what you get when elect a Republican Governor who acts like a Democrat............

[ljb]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[cryptic1]

I don't pretend to know much about U.S. constitutional law but courts
in many countries usually have bodies of precedent to determine how to
interpret the construction and phraseology of the document. I would
say that the amendment speaks to two issues. The first, that there shall
not be any unreasonable search, and the second separate and apart from
the first, in those cases where a warrant is required it shall only be
granted on probable cause. My sense is that there are situations where
a search may be reasonable without requiring a search warrant, and of
course there are situations that absolutely require a warrant and that
must be obtained by way of probable cause. I hope this makes some
sense.

cryptic1

[TurfRuler]

I think that general should understand how to answer a reporters questions or respond "What does probable cause have to to with the goddam Battle of the goddam Bulge."

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Privacy Notice:
This website will not collect personal information about you unless you provide the information to us directly.

Browsing the Office of the Director of National Intelligence website:
The contents of this website may be browsed anonymously.


Security Notice: ...the Office of the Director of National Intelligence monitors network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information or to otherwise cause damage to the site. Anyone using this Website expressly consents to such monitoring.
___________________________
Does anyone understand what this means?

[Secretariat]

"probable cause"...yes, it is in the 4th amendment. But it is something the General did not wish to acknowledge. He screwed up in saying it wasn't in the 4th amendment. Period.

This concept of unlimited executvie power is getting distressing. One could use terrorrist for anything if there is no probable cause.

The executive subpoena of one million "RANDOM" searches on Google. The acquisition of millions of searches from Yahoo and AOL and MSN all in the name of "finding child pornography".

But to go in front of a judge and make a demand for a warrant? No, even though FISA was established for exactly this kind of thing.

Has there even been one arrest and conviction as a result of this "warrrantless" wiretapping? Have there been any arrests in which people were charged and were cleared of charges?

Frankly, I think if ignoring the Constitution and giving yourself over to a 1984 world of spying is where we're heading then we've got problems. Problems for Republicans as well as Democrats because it may be Demcorat in the executive in 2008, and I think most of you will be singing a different song in abusing the 4th amendment as is happening now.

........

"It's amazing how easily people give up their freedoms that they are supposedly trying to give other countries."

[twindouble]

"It's amazing how easily people give up their freedoms that they are supposedly trying to give other countries." quote; Sec.

Sec;
What amazes me is how people can put the American people at risk by attempting to obstruct the very tools we need to protect ourselves for political gain.

What really gets me is our rights have been trampled upon right along to great degree by others. Now, if those here that are Bush bashers can set aside that syndrome for just a short time and think about what I said, you just might see the bigger problems. If not, that says it all for me.

So, anyone comes back and says you tell me, forget it! Your on your own, you figure it out. :p

T.D.

[Secretariat]

I think the Constitution has served us well for over 200 years and I kind of hate to see it disregarded.

[Lefty]

sec, how is it being disregarded when I hear constutional scholars say the 2nd article clearly gives the pres these rights in wartime? Every Pres in wasrtime has claimed broad rights. If Bush censored the press as FDR did, you'd really have a hissy fit.

[JustRalph]

[QUOTE=Secretariat
Has there even been one arrest and conviction as a result of this "warrrantless" wiretapping? Have there been any arrests in which people were charged and were cleared of charges?[/QUOTE]

We have been down this road already. there was the arrest of a wingnut here in Columbus, who had attended AL Queda training camps, and was plotting to bomb a mall here in Columbus. and he owned a cell phone store..............he is currently locked up..............as a direct result of the NSA program

[twindouble]

I think the Constitution has served us well for over 200 years and I kind of hate to see it disregarded.

Sure, it was and is a good foundation but in many respects it doesn't fit our modern society, in my opinion it could use some fine tuning. That's another subject.


T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

What good is the Constitution if you're dead?

[Secretariat]

"With money we will get men, said Caesar, and with men we will get money. Nor should our assembly be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes, and conclude that these unlimited powers will never be abused, because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin , will have seized the heads o! government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on every side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes. The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered."

Thomas Jefferson

[Secretariat]

Sure, it was and is a good foundation but in many respects it doesn't fit our modern society, in my opinion it could use some fine tuning. That's another subject.


T.D.

There is some fine tuning processes. They're called amendments. Only thing is there is no amendment getting rid of probable cause, and I think you'd have a hard time removing it...unless of course you are the President and disregard it.

[Lefty]

sec, seems like you're a terrorist sympathizer to me or is it you'd rather risk our children to terrorists than give a Repub any credit? Either way...

[Lefty]

Ok,sec, have it your way.
You're on record as wanting to give prob cause to terrorists. You dems have went way overboard.

[Secretariat]

sec, seems like you're a terrorist sympathizer to me or is it you'd rather risk our children to terrorists than give a Repub any credit? Either way...


lol...so now I'm a terrorist sympathizer because I beleive in probable cause?

They used the word communist sympathisizer under Joe McCarthy 50 years ago Lefty. This song has been played before.

[Lefty]

sec, if you don't wanta be called a terrorist sympathizer, then don't act like one.
Funny how you libs always want to bring up M'carthy everytime you are challenged. Well, guess what; we did have Communist Sympathizers in this country now we seem to have terrorist sympathizers. Or maybe it's the other thing I mentioned; you care more about politics than the country. I'd say which is it but then you'd just spout another cliche'

[Secretariat]

sec, if you don't wanta be called a terrorist sympathizer, then don't act like one.
Funny how you libs always want to bring up M'carthy everytime you are challenged. Well, guess what; we did have Communist Sympathizers in this country now we seem to have terrorist sympathizers. Or maybe it's the other thing I mentioned; you care more about politics than the country. I'd say which is it but then you'd just spout another cliche'

Lefty, I care about my country. Fought for it in a needless war, and hate to see it happen again. But if anyone questions GW in your book you pull the terrorist sympathisizer card, thats why I make the McCarthy analogy, because he did the exacyt same thing ,and deswtroyed the lives of many innocent people in the process. But play your games...used to it by now.

[Lefty]

sec, if you fought in Vietnam, thanks. My hats off to you. But everything this Pres does to protect this country is criticized by the left. It's one thing to have a negative opinion about the war, it's quite another to always want to give the terrorists due process. The left never gives GW the benefit of the doubt and always end up on the side of the terrorists. If you think the terrorists don't take note of that and count on it, you're fooling yourself.