Friday, May 19, 2006

4th Amendment Redux---Again

OK, I was listening to Al Franken on Air America Radio and he played a clip from Hayden's hearing testimony during his show's game, 'Wait! Wait! Don't lie to me!' I'm not sure if it was from his testimony from yesterday and today or if it was from a 2002 testimony. I will go ahead and research this tonight and try to find the video feed on the C-Span website. (I'm at work right now and do not have spare hours to pour over this testimony, although I do think that his testimony is important) But apparently, Hayden doesn't think that the 4th amendment of the US Constitution says anything about probable cause. He recognized that searches of citizens' homes, papers and persons cannot be conducted without warrants, but didn't think that the probable cause was necessary. He even went so far as to say that the NSA is very familiar with the 4th amendment and this is something of which he's very sure.

Well, for his benefit, for the benefit of the Congressman who asked him that specific question and for the benefit of anyone who stumbles across my blog, here AGAIN is the text of the 4th amendment. I bolded the part regarding probable cause.

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 find this really scary. They want to put him in charge of all of the country's intelligence? I know that I may not have a Master's Degree in Modern American History from Duquesne, and I may not have spent half my life in the military or in government, (or any of it for that matter). I only have a measely bachelor's degree from a state college that took me 14 years and thousands in student loans to get, but I did learn two things in my life of which I am sure: How to read and how to reason.

The constitution clearly says that the government needs a warrant AND probable cause to surveille us. The combination of a warrant and probable cause before searches are conducted is what keeps tyranny from ruling our country. This is how our right to privacy is guaranteed.

I think the fact he doesn't know this makes him singularly disqualified for the job.

« Liberal Blogs »
Blogarama - The Blog Directory this is a Proud Liberal Site