Warrantless Wiretaps

(link) January 24, 2006 -- Hayden Ducks Questions On NSA Whistleblowing, Says Three Top NSA Lawyers Reviewed and Approved Bush Warrantless Wiretap Program. "Speaking yesterday at the National Press Club in Washington, Deputy Director of National Intelligence Gen. Michael Hayden said that when President Bush issued his order on warrantless wiretaps by the NSA of U.S. persons, Hayden consulted separately with three NSA lawyers who concluded that the eavesdropping program was legal. Essentially, three NSA lawyers determined the legality and constitutionality of a presidential order, trumping the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court set up in 1978 to deal with NSA wiretaps of "U.S. persons" and the oversight committees of Congress that are charged with ensuring the president and the Executive branch adhere to the Constitution and the duly-enacted laws of the United States. The three NSA lawyers concluded that a non-FISA and warrantless predicate of "reasonable belief" was as legal as a FISA "probable cause" warrant in order to conduct surveillance of U.S. persons.
However, Hayden’s three NSA lawyers apparently did not know enough about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution to adequately brief him on the probable cause predicate. The following question was asked by Jonathan Landy of Knight-Ridder: "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." Hayden said of the Fourth Amendment: "The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure." Landy: "But does it not say probable [cause]?" Hayden: "No. The amendment says . . . unreasonable search and seizure."
It is apparent that contrary to Hayden's statement, neither he nor his NSA attorneys are familiar with the Fourth Amendment, which states, "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." [...]
Comment: For shame good General. Taking an Oath to something he doesn't either understand or follow. What's this "reasonable belief" BS? I'd say that the good General is either lying or incompetent or a third choice pointing out the obvious so that it is obvious that he is a deceiver.