From General HaydenB9s reading of the Fourth Amendment it follows

Dave, Further comment, if not overload, focused on General Hayden's January 23rd remarks and the exchange with Jonathan Landay. This is at my blog http://www.learnworld.com/blog/blog.html Bruce Saturday, May 06, 2006 ? MICHAEL V. HAYDEN: EREASONABLEB9 SURVEILLANCE? General Michael V. Hayden has been identified by unnamed newspaper sources as a frontrunner to be named Director of Central Intelligence in place of Porter Goss, whose resignation was announced today. In January 2006 General Hayden advanced a remarkable theory to vitiate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and justify unwarranted interception and use of communications to and from B3U.S. persons,B2 principally US citizens. In a speech at the National Press Club [1] General Hayden said, in part: B3Inherent foreign intelligence value is one of the metrics we must use. Let me repeat that: Inherent foreign intelligence value is one of the metrics we must use to ensure that we conform to the Fourth AmendmentB9s reasonable standard when it comes to protecting the privacy of these kinds of people. ... [T]he standard of what was relevant and valuable, and therefore, what was reasonable, would understandably change, I think, as smoke billowed from two American cities and a Pennsylvania farm field. And we acted accordingly.B2 The Fourth Amendment states: B3The 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.B2 After General Hayden had delivered his remarks the floor was opened for questions. The following exchange took place between Hayden and Jonathan Landay of Knight-Ridder: QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. IB9d like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. IB9m 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 AmericanB9s right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use b9 GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually b9 the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. QUESTION: But the b9 GEN. HAYDEN: ThatB9s 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 b9 GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says b9 QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard b9 GEN. HAYDEN: b9 unreasonable search and seizure. QUESTION: The legal standard is probable cause, General. You used the terms just a few minutes ago, B3We reasonably believe.B2 And a FISA court, my understanding is, would not give you a warrant if you went before them and say B3we reasonably believeB2; you have to go to the FISA court, or the attorney general has to go to the FISA court and say, B3we have probable cause.B2 And so what many people believe b9 and IB9d like you to respond to this b9 is that what youB9ve actually done is crafted a detour around the FISA court by creating a new standard of B3reasonably believeB2 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 didnB9t 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 b9 and believe me, if thereB9s any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, itB9s the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what youB9ve raised to me b9and IB9m not a lawyer, and donB9t want to become one b9 what youB9ve raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is B3reasonable.B2 And we believe b9 I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is weB9re doing is reasonable. that the State must seek a search warrant only when it proposes an unreasonablesearch. Reductio ad absurdum. Or we could ask how EreasonablenessB9 is established, and how the issue is resolved if the StateB9s claim to EreasonablenessB9 of a specific searchb9here a program of interceptionsb9is contested. General HaydenB9s position is that he, as Director of NSA, determined EreasonablenessB9; that the program was and ought to have remained secret; and that therefore only those who were properly privy to the secret could have contested it, and then only within the limited circle of those entitled to the secret. Hence Congressional oversight or appeal to the Courts is precluded, unless someone who has learned about the secret intercept program goes public. General HaydenB9s position also neglects the fact that there is lawb9an Act of Congressb9which expressly prohibits what he chose to do as Director of the NSA and defended in January as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence. Title 50 B' 1802(a)(1) authorizes warrantless electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information, subject to some conditions, provided B3there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of the communication to which a United States person is a party;B2 [This distinguishes B3contentB2 from facts that might be gathered about a transaction.] Note that one US person is enough. Title 18 B' 2511 (2)(f) states in part that B3the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.B2 One term, setting scope, is domestic. For domestic surveillance FISA provides the B3exclusive meansB2. If domestic surveillance does not follow the terms of the FISA Act it is illegal. Of course, as everyone including the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has said, we donB9t know exactly what NSA did, because they wonB9t say. Secret. We can, however, work General HaydenB9s language a bit further. Not every person in the United States is a B3United States personB2, despite General HaydenB9s attempt to convince his audience that any terrorist who stepped across the border would become protected from surveillance. In General HaydenB9s words B3And by the way, EU.S. personB9 routinely includes anyone in the United States, citizen or not.B2 But 50 USC B'1801(i) defines a B3United States personB2 as B3a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101(a)(20) of Title 8)B2 and further defined associations and corporations. [3] B3So, for example,B2 Hayden continues, B3because they were in the United Statesb9and we did not know anything moreb9Mohamed Atta and his fellow 18 hijackers would have been presumed to have been protected person, U.S. persons, by NSA prior to 9/11.B2 But not thereafter? What General Hayden does not put on the table is that the law does not ban intercepts but distinguishes those intercepts which may be made without warrant, with Executive approval from those which may only be undertaken pursuant to court-issued warrant, subject to the conditions stipulated in law. The plain meaning of General HaydenB9s subsequent lines is that the communications of US persons are intercepted and judged, despite the law. B3If the U.S. person information isnB9t relevant, the data is suppressed.B2 Whether General Hayden is actually nominated to succeed Porter Goss as CIA Director or not, the claim that the Executive can undertake warrantless interception whenever it says that doing so is EreasonableB9 is pernicious and should be confronted head on. HaydenB9s remaining as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence after his January 23rd remarks is further evidence of problems which few Congressional Republicans, and no one in the White House, seems inclined or ready to address. [Note 1]: Remarks by General Michael V. Hayden, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence and Former Director of the National Security Agency, Address to the National Press Club, B3What American Intelligence & Especially the NSA Have Been Doing to Defend the Nation,B2 Natonal Press Club, Washington, D. C., January 23 2006. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2006/01/hayden012306.pdf [Note 2:] http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/ usc_sec_50_00001809----000-.html [Note 3:] And the Congressional Research Service called attention to this definition in Elizabeth B. Basan, B3The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and Recent Judicial Decisions,B2 22 September 2004, CRS Report RL30465, p. 11 note. -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Bruce D. Larkin Convenor and Director of Studies Global Collaborative on Denuclearization Design http://www.gcdd.net/ Sometime Professor of Politics, University of California at Santa Cruz Email: "Bruce D. Larkin [+]" The [+] flags incoming mail as wanted, avoiding loss amid SPAM. Web: http://www.learnworld.com/ and http://www.gcdd.net/ Mobile: +1-413-695-0264 Landlines: +1-413-634-8842. +353-23-40309. +1-831-429-8443. Course Syllabi: http://www.learnworld.com/COURSES/ =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]