Michael Hayden and NSA warrantless wiretapping: insists "probable cause" is not in 4th amdmt, stupid

[librechik]

Hayden was Bush's Director of NSA and Director of CIA between 06 and 08.

see, guys like Hayden who actually run this country have absolutely no regard for our civil rights whatsoever. They claim we are stupid untaught rubes who don't know the constitution like they do. Otherwise we would realize we have no right to a probable cause defense. Which doesn't exist. You there with the Constitution open to the page on the fourth amendment and reading the text. You have no idea what you are talking about compared to old CIA hands like Hayden.

Hayden is the epaulette-wearing dumbass we can blame for the NSA program and it's disappearance before its reappearance Friday.
Hayden and Bush were Dumb and Dumberer. Read all about his puffery here, with footnotes:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_(general)#cite_note-17

[leveymg]

1. He's a Spook General Geek, not a lawyer.

[librechik]

2. he's a clown, best illustrated by Ted Rall.

[leveymg]

3. I wouln't assume he's that stupid or that his ICBM erector is that big.

Just someone with some holes in his knowledge.

Certainly not in the same category as Dim Son.

[Laelth]

4. Lovely. (sarcasm)

Quite obviously, "probable cause" is a requirement for a warrant to issue pursuant to the 4th Amendment. Personally, I think the government has probable cause. There is probable cause to believe that out of all the data collected, some of that data belongs to someone who has committed a crime. There is probable cause to believe that.

That's not the problem. It's the specificity clause that's the problem. I don't think the FISA warrant leaked by Snowden meets the specificity test of the 4th Amendment. Before such data can be Constitutionally seized, the government must procure a warrant issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The warrant that the NSA uses to collect all this data is far too broad to meet the 4th Amendment's test, imho. It's a blanket warrant that does not specify a specific person who is suspected of criminal activity, nor does it specify the exact "things" to be seized. That, I think, is the Constitutional problem.

-Laelth

[pipoman]

5. There are many constitutional

defenses/arguments and common statements which are not actually written into the Constitution or BoR. These are usually excerpts from relevant SCOTUS decisions. Examples might be 'abortion rights', application of speech to many other acts which clearly aren't speech. This technology is pretty new and it is time for a SCOTUS decision on it. On one hand, if the cell signals use the airwaves, and the NSA was capturing that transmission by harnessing the airwaves, there likely is no expectation of privacy, therefore no violation of the 4th. OTOH, if the NSA is using access through a carrier without the consent of those being monitored, that could be a violation of the 4th. The argument that the subscriber is sharing this information with the carrier, therefore there is no expectation of privacy, is fallacious IMHO..If that is true then you have no expectation of privcy with bank information, or medical information, or most any other information. If this comes down to ambiguity or outright permission being granted through the user agreement, consumers should vacate any carrier who doesn't require a warrant/court order for release of information to anyone...again IMHO

btw, I have not too engaged in this most recent attack on Obama's administration, so I may be missing something..if so please advise..