 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Schadow
Vice Admiral
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 936
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:40 am Post subject: General Hayden's knockout defense of NSA operations |
 |
|
Power Line (John Hinderaker) has posted a lengthy piece quoting exchanges between General Michael Hayden and reporters at the National Press Club on the subject of NSA wiretap surveillance. It's in much greater depth than the snips that have been on the news today. Moreover, it presents a much stronger view that the President is on firm legal ground.
I strongly urge its reading.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012915.php
Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for posting that Schadow, a great read. John also has a link for the General's entire (21 page) speech
John concludes with this -- explains it in an easy to understand manner...
| Quote: |
And, finally, this last, slightly cryptic exchange:
| Quote: | QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, "We reasonably believe." And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say "we reasonably believe"; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, "we have probable cause." And so what many people believe -- and I'd like you to respond to this -- is that what you've actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of "reasonably believe" in place in probable cause because the FISA court will not give you a warrant based on reasonable belief, you have to show probable cause. Could you respond to that, please?
GEN. HAYDEN: Sure. I didn't craft the authorization. I am responding to a lawful order. All right? The attorney general has averred to the lawfulness of the order. Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable.
|
I think that what the reporter said was correct, as to the Presidential authorization. The most fundamental difference between the program authorized by President Bush post-September 11 and FISA is that FISA requires extensive paperwork designed to show probable cause that a person to be surveilled is connected to terrorism. Under the Presidential authorization for limited international surveillance, it sounds as though the standard is "reasonable belief" as opposed to "probable cause." General Hayden was correct as to the constitutional standard. It is not unreasonable to intercept international communications that are reasonably believed to involve al Qaeda; therefore, the program is constitutional. |
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
