Comments for "CIA head Michael Hayden explains the fourth amendment - should his explanation concern American citizens?" Video at VideoSift.com

By SnakePlissken

SnakePlissken (http://www.videosift.com/member/SnakePlissken) — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:53:18 -0700

By Krupo

Krupo (http://krupo.videosift.com) — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:36:06 -0700

As sad as those statements are, they made me LOL...

By Wepwawet

Wepwawet (http://www.videosift.com/member/Wepwawet) — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:23:55 -0700

The Bill of Rights is sooooo 20th Century.

By k8_fan

k8_fan (http://www.videosift.com/member/k8_fan) — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:27:47 -0700

Not suprising. Remember Alberto Gonzolas' description of the Genevea Conventions as "quaint"?

Here's the 4th Amendment for reference:

Amendment IV

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.

This is the same group that can parse the 2nd admendment's "Right to bear arms" and somehow ignore the whole part about it being predated on the need for a "well-regulated militia". If every gun owner were required to be in a well-regulated militia (state militia, National Guard, military reserve) we'd have far fewer accidental gun deaths.

By lucky760

lucky760 (http://lucky760.videosift.com) — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:39:01 -0700

So, to paraphrase Mr. Hayden's stance on the subject, if the government considers a search/seizure to be reasonable, the persons/houses/papers/effects being searched/seized have no right to not be violated, so warrants _may_ be issued without probable cause and without describing the place/person being searched/seized. By that interpretation, the government can simply consider any search/seizure to be reasonable and, therefore, never require probable cause.

Nice.

By aicfan

aicfan (http://www.videosift.com/member/aicfan) — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:12:11 -0700

In a way, Hayden is correct. There are two clauses to the 4th Amendment: First, the search and seizure clause, and second, the warrant clause. The biggest issue in 4th Amendment law is whether those two clauses should be read together or read separately.

If they are read together, then ALL searches and seizures without a warrant are illegal. And since all warrants must be issued on probable cause, all searches and seizures must be based on probable cause.

If they are read separately, then there can be some instances where searches and seizures without a warrant are ok. Whether or not those warrantless searches and seizures are ok IS a question of reasonableness like Hayden said. However, he left out the part that courts have determined that the legal standard for reasonableness is generally probable cause. So if an officer searches or seizes someone without a warrant under circumstances where he has been given the right to do so, he would generally need probable cause in order for that search or seizure to be valid and legal.

There are some scenarios where an officer can act based on a "reasonable suspicion"(a less stringent standard than probable cause) or under exigent circumstances, but those instances don't apply to the wiretapping stuff.

By aicfan

aicfan (http://www.videosift.com/member/aicfan) — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:17:27 -0700

" So, to paraphrase Mr. Hayden's stance on the subject, if the government considers a search/seizure to be reasonable, the persons/houses/papers/effects being searched/seized have no right to not be violated, so warrants _may_ be issued without probable cause and without describing the place/person being searched/seized. By that interpretation, the government can simply consider any search/seizure to be reasonable and, therefore, never require probable cause."

No. He isn't saying warrants can be issued without probable cause. Warrants MUST be based on probable cause, and he isn't saying otherwise.

He is claiming that the WARRANTLESS wire tapping constitutes legal searches and seizures because it is reasonable. Read my above post...he is interpreting the 4th Amendment's clauses separately. Hayden is wrong because he doesn't recognize that probable cause is the standard for whether a search or seizure is reasonable. So, police can act without a warrant in some cases, BUT, they need probable cause in order for that action to be reasonable. There are some very narrowly defined circumstances where an officer can act without a warrant and without probable cause, but wire tapping isn't one of them.

By bizinichi

bizinichi (http://www.videosift.com/member/bizinichi) — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:54:17 -0700

*politics

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 03:54:18 -0700

Video added to politics channel (politics called by gold star member bizinichi)

By eric3579

eric3579 (http://eric3579.videosift.com) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:57:33 -0700

*dead

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:57:33 -0700

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:47:14 -0700

Awarding arvana with one star point for fixing this video's dead embed code.