 |
|
Topic started on 8-2-2006 @ 08:56 AM by Regenmacher
|
external image
4-star General and highest-ranking military intelligence officer in the armed forces,
says "probable cause" is not part of the 4th amendent.
Watch the video:
www.prisonplanet.com...
 Defending Spy Program, General Reveals Shaky Grip on 4th
Amendment
QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target
your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable
cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.
GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say probable --
GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --
QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --
GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure.
more...click link above Please visit the link provided for the complete story. 4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ladeda 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.
Considering Hayden's views, is he giving us a prequel of what is to come and towards the New World Order. With leaders like this who needs a
dictator? Can you say military junta?
[edit on 8-2-2006 by Regenmacher]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 09:17 AM by Produkt
|
This photograph of the bill of right's show's that admendment as the 6th, not 4th. o.0 wierd.
atsmedia.cachefly.net...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 09:43 AM by Regenmacher
|
 Originally posted by Produkt
This photograph of the bill of right's show's that admendment as the 6th, not 4th. o.0 wierd 
That's cause it's not the "current" Bill of Rights.
Article: en.wikipedia.org...
Edit: see LoganCale's response
[edit on 8-2-2006 by Regenmacher]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 09:58 AM by Produkt
|
The image you posted says the same thing. Look at it closely. It's abit hard to read, but article four still talks about the militia and article 6
talks about the search and siezure issue.
[EDIT: More images]
Found this one here, place's article four from the previous two as article two and article six is now article four, but this isn't an actual
photograph either.
www.corliss-lamont.org...
And this one here is the same as the last two picture's.
www.state.de.us...
[edit on 8-2-2006 by Produkt]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 10:05 AM by LoganCale
|
That is because that is the original Bill of Rights which contained 12 amendments. Amendment 1 and 2 of the original Bill of Rights were not
ratified, thus, Amendment 3 became Amendment 1 and Amendment 6 became Amendment 4.
en.wikipedia.org...
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 11:03 AM by clearmind
|
hummmmm.......
the reporter didn't really finish his question before the general cut in and said
GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
then there was confused exchange and the general ended with, i'm just following orders..
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.
so the govt interpts the 4th admendment to ACTUALLY say ..if the govt reasonable belives something then it does not need probable cause????
JUST AS IMPORTANTLY........ nice how the general saw the question comming and did what he was traianed to do..try to derail and manipulate the
question, then to answer by envoking a higher ..for lack of a better term...authority......
...mind control in progress.........
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 11:21 AM by esdad71
|
Where does he say that the US government does not have to have probable cause for a search? Does he actually say that?
Read the whole article a realize there are instances when probable cause does not apply, and it has nothing to do with the NWO but law.
en.wikipedia.org...
I watched the video and the editing is creative. He is correct in stating that the amendment is about "unreasonable serach and seizure", it is not
about probable cause. This is true. The amendmant states that probable cause may be used to support a warrant, but the Amendant is not about
"probable cause".
See how easy it is to twist words for your own agenda? Prison planet, got to love it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 11:39 AM by LoganCale
|
Firstly, Hayden did not say the government doesn't need probable cause, he said the amendment does not say probable cause, which it does.
Secondly, the amendment text is this:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ladeda 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.
en.wikipedia.org...
Now, the Wikipedia article says this about probable cause:
A warrant is not necessary for a search or seizure under certain circumstances. Officers may search and seize objects that are in "plain view."
Before the search and seizure, however, the officers must have probable cause to believe that the objects are contraband.
en.wikipedia.org...
I'm not a lawyer, but I apply that to wiretapping by saying it means they have to have some reason to beleive the target of the wiretap is a
terrorist and they can't just use a dragnet system that picks up everyone and sifts out keywords (ala ECHELON).
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 11:42 AM by Regenmacher
|
Hayden blowing smoke out his rear and there's nothing creative about it.
The only creative part are those who willingly bend over, make excuses and give up their privacies for this load of doublespeak crapola. Have to be
real creative to brainwash yourself into that line of thought 
Hayden misled Congress about warrantless domestic surveillance in October 2002.
Turning Up the Heat
FLASHBACK: Director of National Security Agency Misled Congress
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-2-2006 @ 12:07 PM by LoganCale
|
I did not watch the video in this post, as I hate Windows Media, but I did watch the QuickTime one on Crooks and Liars, which is available
here.
For easy reference, I made a transcript of this version which follows:
QUESTION: My understanding is that the fourth amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that
does not violate an American's right against unlawful seeches and ser - searches and seizures. Do you --
HAYDEN: No, actually, the fourth amendment actually, uh, protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the --
HAYDEN: That's what it says.
QUESTION: The measure is probable cause, I believe.
HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But does it not say prob--
HAYDEN: No.
QUESTION: The court standard -- the legal standard --
HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.
QUESTION: But the legal standard is probable cause.
CUT IN VIDEO TO OTHER PART OF DISCUSSION
HAYDEN: Just to be very clear, okay? 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, all right? And it is a reasonableness standard in the fourth amendment.
CUT IN VIDEO TO ANCHOR, END OF INTERVIEW
There is no "clever" editing to make him say different things in this video. I don't know if it's the same video as the one linked. But
this one is straightforward. The only cut goes to another relevant part later.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 26-2-2006 @ 11:26 AM by psyopswatcher
|
Gen. Hayden, Negroponte's deputy?
Well, he's right at the heart of the old TIA matters:
It is no secret that some parts of TIA lived on behind the veil of the classified intelligence budget.
A controversial counter-terrorism program, which lawmakers halted more than two years ago amid outcries from privacy advocates, was stopped in name
only and has quietly continued within the intelligence agency now fending off charges that it has violated the privacy of U.S. citizens.
...
...earlier this month, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, one of TIA's strongest critics questioned whether intelligence officials knew that
some of its programs had been moved to other agencies. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and FBI
Director Robert Mueller whether it was "correct that when [TIA] was closed, that several ... projects were moved to various intelligence agencies....
I and others on this panel led the effort to close [TIA]; we want to know if Mr. Poindexter's programs are going on somewhere else."
Negroponte and Mueller said they didn't know. But Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who until recently was
director of the NSA, said, "I'd like to answer in closed session." Asked for comment, Wyden's spokeswoman referred to his hearing
statements.
The NSA is now at the center of a political firestorm over President Bush's program to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of people in the
United States who the agency believes are connected to terrorists abroad. While the documents on the TIA programs don't show that their tools are
used in the domestic eavesdropping, and knowledgeable sources wouldn't discuss the matter, the TIA programs were designed specifically to develop
the kind of "early-warning system" that the president said the NSA is running.
TIA Lives
So the general kept the Director of National Intelligence in the dark? His boss? We're supposed to believe that? Like Bush 41 didn't know about
Iran/Contra when he was VP--after being a CIA Director too?
And we were expected to believe that once the agencies got their hands on the technology that they weren't going to use it? By hook or by crook.
Once the govt contracts get rolling, you can't stop advancements in technology and being at 'war' has always been the cover they need to do it.
National Information Exchange Model:
NIEM Mission
To assist in developing a unified strategy, partnerships, and technical implementations for national information sharing—laying the foundation for
local, state, tribal, and federal interoperability by joining together communities of interest. That foundation consists of three parts: core data
components, reusable XML exchange packages, and business-process models for information sharing. The business process drives the creation of
information exchange packages that are populated by reusable components.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 26-2-2006 @ 11:40 AM by passenger
|
Generally, Probable Cause is defined as having a reasonable belief that a person has, is, or is about to commit a crime. The problem
really comes from the interpretation of "reasonable". It's been gone over and over in Supreme Court descisions. Sometimes one way then the
other.
Exceptions can be made based upon individual circumstances in some instances. In others the court has decided upon complete objectivity.
That being said, the problem lies with the good General's opinion of it and others like him in positions of power. How do they see it and plan to
utilize it? Based on the OP, any way they want.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 26-2-2006 @ 12:52 PM by IntelRetard
|
what is that tight looking gold ring on his right hand? Struck me as odd to see an American millitary person with any other jewlery than a wedding
ring visible.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2006 @ 02:04 PM by Benevolent Heretic
|
And now he's been nominated to head the CYA ... I mean CIA. 
I feel safer already! 
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2006 @ 02:34 PM by tommy1701
|
Here we go,
Hayden must be "NWO" because bush is NWO, anyone appointed by bush must be "NWO" He's a bush guy so he must be "Bad", (i.e. justice john
roberts and sammuel alito). Hayden will stop at nothing to support the evil bush administration -even twisting the words of an interviewer. A poor
interviewer who is just "doing his job", got sucker puched by Hayden. Hayden is part of the "evil capitalist bush war machine". Elitest Generals
- He's not a civilian.
"Sarcasm Intenional"
I can't wait for the senate hearings on this guy. Lets see the panel who will be questioning him. mmmmm, I can just see it now, Robert "KKK"
(yes I was in the clan) Byrd, Charles (I have a permit to carry a gun, but I don't think anyone else should) Schummer, Ted (no that girl was alive
when i drove the car off the bridge, but I thought I'd better go home and sleep it off) Kennedy. And of course, Hillary (bill did not bang that girl
in the oval office) Rodham Clinton.
What a *SNIP* joke.
Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 10/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2006 @ 07:07 PM by psyopswatcher
|
The hearings will open him up to the most exposure the NSA's had over warrentless wiretapping--reasonable or not, since the issue was exposed.
Can't imagine why Turdblossom would put his 4-star in the spotlight like this.
Unless the CIA is in some serious need of discipline and this is one way to get them to fall in line--send in the troops. But the NWO thinking is:
“Military men are just stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy” -- Kissinger
Right, RM?
And the foreign policy of this adminstration is not to be disputed, discussed or politicized.
It's been decided.
"A Prince, whose character is ... marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People."
-- Declaration of Independence
They might have been reading Machiavelli.
[edit on 10-5-2006 by psyopswatcher]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-5-2006 @ 07:09 PM by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
|
I was surprised that the post is going to a high up military man. Perhaps this is part of a new plan to put military people ahead of any civilian
figures? I've also heard that after a shakeup of emergency succession more military people will be incharge especially after more terrorist attacks.
Eisenhow did warn us about the Military Industrial Complex and it's thirst for power. I don't think we should ignore that.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
