• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Deputy Director of the NSA doesn't know what the 4th amendment says

The Bushwhacko's theme song is, "Praise The Lord, and Shred The Constitution."

We've got guns and badges. We don't need no stinking warrants! :|
 
Originally posted by: mc00
http://www.freepressinternational.com/nsa-4th-amendment.html

heh - they don't even understand 4th amendment
I figure I share this with you guys.
Click to expand...

It's selective understanding - only understand the parts that suit your purpose. The fact that they can get away with all the stuff they're doing speaks volumes about the lack of ethics and principles of the current administration and lawmakers.

The irony is that these are the very type of people who are considered 'constitution traditionalists' - who want to uphold the original intent of the constitution!


 
Is this a video clip of Hayden saying he doesn't know what the 4th ammendment says???

If so WTF


The link is broken though
 
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The second amendment is so we the people can uphold the other amendments.
Click to expand...
So is the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and the press.
Today, we have none.
Click to expand...
Fixed the statement. 🙁 Now, if we could just fix the government. :|
Originally posted by: PELarson
Hayden is now the head of the CIA!
Click to expand...
The "Peter Principle" at work. :roll:
By the way the video clip is a few months old.
Click to expand...
But no less relevant. Anyone that ignorant of the Constitution has no business in a job intended to protect and defend it. :|
 
Well, now we know why the Administration thinks what it is doing is legal. I suppose the Bush version of the Bill of Rights would fit on a Post-it-Note.
 
Originally posted by: Frackal
Is this a video clip of Hayden saying he doesn't know what the 4th ammendment says???

If so WTF


The link is broken though
Click to expand...

Not exactly that. Hayden is telling in the interview that there is no clause about "probable cause" in the 4th amendment and that "if there is any amendment that the NSA knows, it's the forth". However, there is indeed a passage about probable cause in the 4th amendment and Hayden doesn't know enough about it to not spout off looking sorta stupid. *shrugs*
 
Originally posted by: Frackal
Is this a video clip of Hayden saying he doesn't know what the 4th ammendment says???

If so WTF

The link is broken though
Click to expand...

It comes up with a black screen.

Do a right click and hit play.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Frackal
Is this a video clip of Hayden saying he doesn't know what the 4th ammendment says???

If so WTF


The link is broken though
Click to expand...

Not exactly that. Hayden is telling in the interview that there is no clause about "probable cause" in the 4th amendment and that "if there is any amendment that the NSA knows, it's the forth". However, there is indeed a passage about probable cause in the 4th amendment and Hayden doesn't know enough about it to not spout off looking sorta stupid. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Not to take the NSA's side here... but I think the point the general was making was to emphasize the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure". The reporter says "unlawful" search and seizure in his question. General Hayden never said that there is no probable cause section to the 4th.

He was arguning against the phrasing that the reporter was using. The reporter is making the assertion that probable cause is needed for any search and the general is saying that the fourth protects against unreasonabe search and seizure, not ALL search and seizure.

He was correcting the reporters misquote of the constitution. In the next clip the general reinforced his point by pointing out that there is a reasonablness clause in the fourth. Again, the reporter is placing the emphasis of the fourth on probable cause and the general is placing the emphasis on reasonableness.

You guys are reading way more into this than there is.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Frackal
Is this a video clip of Hayden saying he doesn't know what the 4th ammendment says???

If so WTF


The link is broken though
Click to expand...

Not exactly that. Hayden is telling in the interview that there is no clause about "probable cause" in the 4th amendment and that "if there is any amendment that the NSA knows, it's the forth". However, there is indeed a passage about probable cause in the 4th amendment and Hayden doesn't know enough about it to not spout off looking sorta stupid. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Not to take the NSA's side here... but I think the point the general was making was to emphasize the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure". The reporter says "unlawful" search and seizure in his question. General Hayden never said that there is no probable cause section to the 4th.

He was arguning against the phrasing that the reporter was using. The reporter is making the assertion that probable cause is needed for any search and the general is saying that the fourth protects against unreasonabe search and seizure, not ALL search and seizure.

He was correcting the reporters misquote of the constitution. In the next clip the general reinforced his point by pointing out that there is a reasonablness clause in the fourth. Again, the reporter is placing the emphasis of the fourth on probable cause and the general is placing the emphasis on reasonableness.

You guys are reading way more into this than there is.
Click to expand...


I'm not reading too much into any of it hence the *shrug* but I just watched it again and Hayden specifically said "no" to the question "does it not contain probable cause". I don't know how many ways you can take that.
 
Reporter: But does it not say probable --

Hayden: No.

That is plain english, no reading into anything needed there.



 
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Reporter: But does it not say probable --

Hayden: No.

That is plain english, no reading into anything needed there.
Click to expand...

I think he's still arguing against the previous question. At that point (where he says no) he's still trying to correct the reporter. "Unlawful" is a a whole lot different than "Unreasonable".

Like I said before... He was arguing against the phrasing that the reporter was using. The reporter is making the assertion that probable cause is needed for any search and the general is saying that the fourth protects against unreasonabe search and seizure, not ALL search and seizure.

It's a little frustrating because that clip is in flash so you can't pause it and back it up. But if you listen close, the reporter is jumping between S&S and probable cause. The general isn't jumping between the two and is correctly restating what the reporter got wrong.
 
If you look at the video you'll see that Hayden goes blink crazy as soon as the reporter says "probable case" and well before he says "unlawful." 😉

But aside from the body language, the who press conference was about the fact that they have been lisening in on citizens phone conversations without warrants issued on the grounds of probable cause as demanded by our Fourth Amendment. I Googled up a full transcript for you here.


Oh yeah:

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
"Unlawful" is a a whole lot different than "Unreasonable".
Click to expand...
It isn't a "whole lot different" by any means unreasonable is unlawful according the Fourth Amendment.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Reporter: But does it not say probable --

Hayden: No.

That is plain english, no reading into anything needed there.
Click to expand...

I think he's still arguing against the previous question. At that point (where he says no) he's still trying to correct the reporter. "Unlawful" is a a whole lot different than "Unreasonable".
Click to expand...
Ummm... NO! Watch it closely. Hayden is clearly disputing the Constitutional requirement for probable cause to obtain a search warrant.
Reporter: But the measure is "probable cause," I believe

Hayden: (shakes head "no") The measure says, "unreasonable search and siezure."

Reporter: But does it not say "probable..."

(interrupted by Hayden): No, the amendment says, "unreasonable search and siezure."

Reporter (continuing): ... the important... the legal standard is "probable cause"
Click to expand...
Just in case you tuned out before Olbermann recited the text of the Fourth Amendment, here it is:
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.
Click to expand...
The reporter didn't even get to the absolute requirement for a warrant, which can only be obtained with probable cause, but since Bushwhacko, himself, has rejected the need for search warrants, even retroactive warrants under the FISA satute, why should we expect anything else from his jack booted storm troopers? :|
 
ridiculous

I'd bet most people in such positions don't know the Constitution other than their belief that it's some piece of paper that we reference for patriotic reasons once in a while.

This guy needs to come correct publicly.
 
Conveniently, most of the 35% still supporting Bush only read up to the second ammendment, and didn't really understand the first. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top