Think Progress

Former NSA Director Michael Hayden:

By Judd Legum on Jan 24th, 2006 at 8:18 am

Former NSA Director Michael Hayden:

not that familiar with the Fourth Amendment.

Comments
52

52 Responses to “Former NSA Director Michael Hayden:”

Anti Warhol says:

On a related note, Gen. Hayden also claimed the 2nd Amendment gives Americans te right to “arm bears”.

Somebody alert Steven Colbert.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Gerald Gibson says:

I wonder if he is familiar with the Bush familys bestest friends in the whole world …the Saudis …

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document042602.asp
January 24th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Innocent Lite says:

NO comment on another anti-Bush, liberal govt that just got ousted from power.

Face it – liberalism is DEAD. After Bush stocks the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues, practice saying President Rice.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Democrat Soldier says:

#3 – You’re not much of a student of history, are you there, Innocent Lite?

How many times in American history have the Democrats and Republicans changed majority in the House? Or the Senate? Come on, I’m sure that you can figure it out. The information is available on many web sites.

I’m also confident that when the Republicans are relegated back to the minority party that you’ll be fine with Democrats talking like you are: Face it, Neo-conservatism is DEAD. After the new Democratic Majority stocks the Supreme court with left-wing ideologues, practice saying President Hillary Clinton.

Now, can you actually follow up on a challenge? Can you accurately report the number of times the Democrats and Republicans have switched parties in the House/Senate? I’ll even give you a hint about the House: It was the 35th session of the House where Democrats & Republicans began the two-party system. Before that, it was Democrats & Opposition, before that it was Democrats & Whigs.

I think what it all really boils down to is that the current administration wants to cut & paste from the Constitution, and evoke a return of the official “second class citizen”. Anyone who doesn’t drink the kool-aid or sell their souls to big-business/big-government will be denied many/most rights. All those who become Neo-Conserva-Clones will be allowed to do anything they want.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Viktor says:

Oh, he’s familiar.

http://www.nsa.gov/releases/HPSCI_04122000/sld001.htm
http://www.nsa.gov/releases/HPSCI_04122000/sld005.htm

“Under FISA, NSA may only target communications of a U.S. person in the United States if a federal judge finds probable cause to believe that the U.S. person is an agent of a foreign power. Probable cause exists when facts and circumstances within the applicant’s knowledge and of which has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the proposed target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. Under the statute, a judge may determine a U.S. person to be an agent of a foreign power only if there is information to support a finding that the individual is a spy, terrorist, saboteur, or someone who aids or abets them.”

Michael Hayden
http://www.nsa.gov/releases/relea00060.pdf
January 24th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Andrew says:

I think the point of his little talk yesterday was to clearly lay out for people that his plan didn’t violate the law but the president’s does and it wasn’t his idea!
January 24th, 2006 at 8:57 am
ohdave says:

#3 Other… what was the first one? Spain? Germany?
January 24th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Innocent Lite says:

#7 – Germany and France is obvioulsy next, but it doesn’t matter. They went too far.

See people – NO ONE in this world really thinks like you. Don’t get me wrong – they hate America like you do, but they know deep down they want this life. Most of you do too. You just like to b*tch so you can feel superior and important. You’re not though.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Blue County in a Red state says:

Intellect Lite

Get over yourself.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Democrat Soldier says:

#8 – The only people who hate America are the terrorists, most of the rest of the world, and the Neo-Cons. Why else do you think they want to suspend the 1st and 4th amendments?

I can only assume that you hate America because you complained when Pres. Clinton was reducing poverty, reducing the deficit, bringing around and increasing the surplus, lowering unemployment, and having sex with a staffer. Of course, it’s only the last one that you think is just fantastic when it’s a Republican doing it.

By the way, are you going to cut & run from the challenge in #4???
January 24th, 2006 at 9:13 am
the fly-man says:

Oh, Canada. France went to far for whom or for what? Are we having a conversation about conservatism ,or The NSA? ON TOPIC PLEASE.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:14 am
big papa says:

Hayden was a disgrace. When he spouted off about 9/11 and preventing it had they had the current “DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM” (I don’t give a da*n what Karl Rove is spinning it to be) I knew that this was Bushite propaganda at its worst…

I loved the Knight Ridder reporter (whose name escapes me) who brought up the “legal” vs purely 4th Amendment parameters in ascertaining whom the NSA would eavesdrop on…

The reporter asked Hayden if they had met the “legal” standard of “probable cause” in order to institute surveillance on subjects vs the 4th amendment’s language of “…against unreasonable search and seizure (to which the “legal clarifications” were added in order to clear any ambiguities)…

Simply put, the “legal” precedent established by ’stare decisis’ supercedes the 4th amendment language of protection against “unreasonable searches and seizure”, ostensibly to establish a legal barrier of “probable cause” to prevent arbitrary and capricious defining of what is “reasonable” or “unreasonable” by any one potentate. Placing that burden upon the judiciary (FISA)…

Hayden kept parroting the “strict constructionist line of their surveillance being “reasonable” (as per the 4th Amendment), which proves they sought to circumvent the more strenuous “legal” standard of probable cause…

This administration is a joke…

…a bunch of amateur cowboys, and Bush embarrassed all of those “lawyers” he consulted, because they’re all going to look like Bushite/Gonzales Stooges…
January 24th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Innocent Lite says:

#10 – Bull sh*t on Clinton. He had little to nothing to do with your list. He created an heir of invisibility that made America vulnerable to terrorism, he smeared his opponents and he was a sexual offender. If Clinton had been a Republican, he would had to resign. He also left us with his racist wife.

As for Bush, he is engaging the world in a war against terrorism. You are part of the problem and you hate America, but you are far outnumbered so you do not pose a threat. Your hatred has deemed you irrelevant. That’s a good thing.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:16 am
the fly-man says:

This kind of inking the waters chaps me off more than stubborn old farts. At least they can tell what road they are on.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Gus, OBGYN, Gigolo, Lover says:

This is precisely why the President is commander in chief of the armed services, not the people.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:18 am
big papa says:

but they know deep down they want this life.

Comment by Innocent Lite #8

Incoherent Liteweight,

What “life” would that be?

Are you filthy rich, or just filthy and stupid?

Tell us how “fabulously” you’re living…
January 24th, 2006 at 9:18 am
A.G. says:

I ask again: What power does the President not claim? If there are no limits to his power, how is he different from Hitler or Stalin or George III? If you say he differs in his benevolence, I must ask: don’t you think Hitler and Stalin and George III were viewed as benevolent in some quarters? If we invest unlimited power in a unitary – or, unilateral – executive, how are we different from Cuba or Venezuela?
January 24th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Democrat Soldier says:

#13 – that’s right, when you cannot successfully refute the argument, make up claims and ignore the initial question. Typical troll non-response. Also, thank you for “cutting & running” on my challenge. Another typical non-response.

It’s too bad you have to malign American veterans, but I really don’t expect any better from the radical-right trolls that spew their hatred for America on this site.

The Constitution is a document that was created to provide the average citizen protection from the over-reaching power of the state, and to provide the state with the ability to protect itself. If the state must violate the constitution to justify its illegal actions, then the state must be shown the error’s of its ways.

Too bad the radical-right hates America and the Constitution on which it was founded. Then again, I expected no less from them. I’m just fortunate to have served my countries military before the current administration defecated upon the Constitution and lied our way into a war for oil and entrenched power.

My pardon if I got off-topic. I should know better than to feed the mis-informed trolls that spread calumny and lies.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Dumb Fox says:

Nice freudian slip, #13… Clinton’s “heir of invisibility”… describes perfectly Dubya and his transparent uselessness.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Lily says:

Maybe the 4th amendment doesn’t actually say “probable” cause, maybe it says “even remotely possible” cause.
And maybe it says “unreasonable in Bush’s opinion” search and seizure. I need to read up on it, and so should all you anti-American liberals. I bet you’ve got it all wrong.
Innocent Lite is right. I want this life. I want escalating unemployment, an outrageous deficit, fewer civil rights. Ok, I really mean no civil rights as long as I’m protected from Quaker terrorists.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:38 am
A.G. says:

Lily, Here it is:
Here’s the Fourth Amendment: “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. “
January 24th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Democrat Soldier says:

#21 – I’m sure you misquoted. I don’t see anything in there concerning Pres. Bush and his ability to ignore any and all articles of the Constitution whenever he wants to. No, I think Iâ€™m going to have to do my own research to find out the â€˜truthâ€™. Pres. Bush would never tell a bald-faced lie like that, and extend the reach of his big-government in such a way. Heâ€™s not that type of man. I looked deep in his cow-like eyes, and I saw his soul, and he would never do that!

(Despite my sarcasm, Iâ€™ve got to go pray that I die before the death of Democracy in America.)
January 24th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Gerald Gibson says:

#3 .. Your past couple days had been irritating. But now you are totaly embarressing yourself to the point that your words carry no weight. Liberalism has been around for a few thousand years. Where did you ever get such a crazy idea? Oh you heard it in church. Well heres a secret… Lots of crazy stuff is said in church… dont believe everything you hear.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Lily says:

#21 You must have misunderstood. I guess I was mumbling because my tongue was stuck in my cheek.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Democrat Soldier says:

#23 – You’re so correct! My Southern Baptist upbringing taught me that Republicans are the part of “personal responsibility” and “fiscal conservatism” and “morals”.

Since then, I’ve learned that no single party has a lock on these concepts. But it is the Republicans who have turned their back on these principles the most.

I just wish they cared about the Constitution as much as they do power, greed, big-government and big-business. It’s comforting to know that the Democrats are the only party that cares about the average citizens rights.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:56 am
wisedup says:

havden, you could READ the 4th, or get someone to READ IT FOR YOU.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Democrat Soldier says:

#24 – I heard your sarcasm quite clearly! Unfortunately, there are so many mis-informed trolls that have been visiting this site recently that itâ€™s easy to mistake a post for more of the same.

Donâ€™t worry! Iâ€™m sure that the â€˜sarcasm meterâ€™ of the loyal Think Progress participants will be restored as the calumny from the radical-right neo-cons is refuted and they wake up and smell the excrement coming from the current administration and Pres. Bush.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Lily says:

#23 At least Innocent Lite has admitted that Bush is “stocking the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues.”
January 24th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Gerald Gibson says:

Itâ€™s comforting to know that the Democrats are the only party that cares about the average citizens rights.

Not really THAT comforting. I am glad someone is still trying, but I prefer the times in America when Left and Right would die to protect Ben Franklins America. When the pendulum swings this far from center times are uncertain.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Hardy Haberman says:

These folks pick and choose which words they want to believe in the constitution, much the same way the fundamentalists pick and choose which Bible phrases they believe should be taken literally.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Gerald Gibson says:

#30 exactly. Its all about THEM. Funny how they dont see that.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Marie says:

The brain dead among us who want to give up their freedom to a egomaniac in the White House do not have the right to give up the freedoms of the rest of us. Freedoms that are guaranteed in the Constitution/Bill of Rights, regardless of the what ill-learned Michael Hayden believes.
After five years of deceit, secrecy, manipulation of facts, incompetence, and partisanship by the Bush White House, that anyone would readily hand over their freedoms in the name of the Bush claim of “security” is not thinking clearly.
We shouldn’t give over our freedoms to even the most liberal of governments, much less one that has already shown itself capable and willing to abuse power, and then lie about it.
Hayden is someone they brought in to make their case, but he hasn’t done his homework – much like his superiors in the White House – they don’t study history, or law, or the Constitution either, and they are repeating mistakes of the past because they haven’t learned.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Democrat Soldier says:

By the bye, Innocent Lite, since you cut & run from my challenge, I’ll have to give you a lesson about the House:

Since 1857, when the Democrats and Republicans have been the two parties in politics the House has changed from Majority Party 15 times. Democrats were majority in 1957, and Republicans became majority in 1959.

In total, the Republicans were majority for 68 years, while the Democrats were the majority for 82 years. The longest stretch of majority rule was the Democrats from 1955 until 1995.

Unfortunately for the mis-educated radical-right trolls, the majority party does not remain in power forever. Or I should say Fortunately. It gives us a chance to sweep out the entrenched power and usher in some new visions and legislators less blinded by their own importance. I’m looking forward to the Republicans returning to the minority party.

Since it is the Republicans in DC who conveniently ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t pander to their autocratic style of government, I’m afraid that we’ll soon hear about a constitutional amendment that says “Pres. George ‘W’ Bush can break any law or amendment whenever he wants to, just because!”
January 24th, 2006 at 10:12 am
big papa says:

As for Bush, he is engaging the world in a war against terrorism. You are part of the problem and you hate America, but you are far outnumbered so you do not pose a threat. Your hatred has deemed you irrelevant. Thatâ€™s a good thing.

Comment by Innocent Lite #13

Incoherent Liteweight,

Once again you’ve misunderstood the nature of dissention. It IS American to speak truth to power, it is UNAmerican to kowtow and prostrate oneself to the abusive potentate or powerful lobby…

Thus, it is YOU who hates America, and YOU who is the traitor to our country and its founding principles…
January 24th, 2006 at 10:23 am
TerrytheTurtle says:

Innocent Lite – you still have not answered my questions from yesterday:
(1) Do you think the Monroe Doctrine is still in effect? Is conservatism on the march in Latin America?
(2) Are you servile, unpatriotic, morally treasonous or some combination of all three?
January 24th, 2006 at 10:27 am
For Truth says:

Innocent Lite must live well, I dont know many folk like him who don’t. The well off Republicans are fearful of anyone messing with their money. And use all this other talking stuff to mask it.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:33 am
david says:

I would like to kill all conservative Republicans.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
david says:

I wish all conservative Republicans would shoot themselves in the head for once instead of shooting themselves in the foot. Just once.
January 24th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
big papa says:

Nice freudian slip, #13â€¦ Clintonâ€™s â€œheir of invisibilityâ€â€¦ describes perfectly Dubya and his transparent uselessness.

Comment by Dumb Fox #19

Yo Fox,

That’s “educating” them…

Great response…

“heir of invisibility”

hahahahahahahaha!!!!

Home schooled inbreds,

ya gotta luv ‘em!
January 24th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
big papa says:

I wish all conservative Republicans would shoot themselves in the head for once instead of shooting themselves in the foot. Just once.

Comment by david #38

david,

First Dumb fox then this (post above),

Da*n we (progressives) are on fire today!

hahahahaha!!!

Lovin’ it…

Maybe you guys/gals should ease up, we don’t want ‘em to scatter…
January 24th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Dumb Fox says:

Yo, BP…

“Heir of invisibility” – too good to be true. I mean it’s even spelt correctly… one of the best accidental jokes of the year.
January 24th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
big papa says:

one of the best accidental jokes of the year.

Comment by Dumb Fox #41

Hey Fox,

Do ya think “it” (I’nbred Liteweight) has the “Rovian” savvy to come back with something like:

“I meant Clinton had someone he thought he could hand his power down to, but couldn’t quite “SEE into the future” to know who it would be.”

….NAH!!!!

…too complex a thought process for a home schooled inbred….

hahahahahaha!!!!!!!
January 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
A.G. says:

Lily, I thought I detected the sarcasm, but it can’t be repeated often enough. So, hereâ€™s the Fourth Amendment: â€œThe 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. â€œ
January 24th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
IL says:

Looks like IL doesn’t want to play anymore today. Oh dear.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Dumb Fox says:

No idea, papa, no idea. I’m just trying to figure how he’s screwed up his name…

Indecent sight
Intellect lite
Inbred delight
Innocuous bite
Insipid trite

Whatchuthink?
January 24th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
big papa says:

Indecent sight
Intellect lite
Inbred delight
Innocuous bite
Insipid trite

Whatchuthink?

Comment by Dumb Fox #45

Fox,

That’s a toughie…

…they’re all so appropo…

hahahahahaha!!!!!
January 24th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Solitaire says:

The thing is, why should we care what a third level bureaucrat thinks about the Constitution,.. or a general for that matter? Do they get to define the rights that you and I should enjoy? It’s a symptom of the problem that Michael Hayden is even ASKED to determine if the president acted illegally. If he had been obeying the law, it would not come up! If Bush was obeying the law, we wouldn’t be looking for someone (ANYONE!) to tell us whether or not we have a loose cannon in the Presidential Office. If Bush were obeying the law, Generals under his command would not be “clarifying” our rights for us.
January 24th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
big papa says:

Face it – liberalism is DEAD. After Bush stocks the Supreme Court with right-wing ideologues, practice saying President Rice.

Comment by Innocent Lite #3

Indecent Lowlife,

…nothing an impeachment hearing or two, or a good old fashioned treason trial couldn’t remedy…

…we’ll see who’s dead…
January 24th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
big papa says:

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. â€œ

Comment by A.G. #21

Yo A.G.

You’re famous!

Keith Olberman read YOUR exact words on his show tonite…

Didja see it!

hahahahaha!!!

Just kidding,

Really great job of researching that on your part…
January 24th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Land of the Free? says:

Playing stupid is such a masterful Bush administration tactic.

You’re doing a heck of a job, Mikey.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Sharon Cox says:

Good notes every one, off topic here, please forgive. Democratic Soldier, I agree with everything you have said, save one. Having raised horses, cattle and swine, you are wrong about Bull S*** Bushes eyes. They are not like a cows, more like a pigs, small, squinty and a lot to close together. Take my word for it., I’ve been calling him pig eyes for years…Blessings
January 25th, 2006 at 1:15 am
Animal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs says:

Animal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 10:05 am

Former NSA Director Michael Hayden:

Former NSA Director Michael Hayden:

52 Responses to “Former NSA Director Michael Hayden:”

Blogroll