Hayden: Same S***, Different Appointee

George Bush has continued to show his disdain for the Constitution with the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to run the CIA. According to the White House Press Department Fox News, Bush commended Hayden with, “Mike Hayden is supremely qualified for this position.” It seems the entire GOP is issuing similar comments. Let’s take a look at the real qualifications of someone who has repeatedly sworn to uphold the Constitution.

In January, we reported about Hayden’s lack of understanding of the 4th Amendment. With Hayden being the lead story in the news today, perhaps it’s time for a refresher course. Here’s a transcript of the interview Keith Olbermann covered:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My understanding is that the Fourth Amendment to 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. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, actually, the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That’s what it says.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But does it not say probable”¦

HAYDEN: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “¦ the court standard”¦

HAYDEN: The amendment says”¦

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “¦ the legal standard”¦

HAYDEN: “¦ unreasonable search and seizure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: “¦ the legal standard is probable cause.

HAYDEN: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: To quote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in its entirety, the one the general and the NSA folks are so familiar with and know is about reasonableness and not about probable cause, quote, “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 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.”

Well, maybe they have a different Constitution over there at the NSA.

Here’s the video. Thanks to Jon Airheart for the reminder.

posted by Stephen Gordon
  • johnny

    Wow whats wrong with Fox news, here i thought this was a Libertarian site not an offshoot of movenon.org

  • Stephen Gordon

    How’s this for one of many examples. In this case, Bill O’Reilly did everything he could to duck Badnarik and other Libertarians.

  • Rhampton

    johnny,
    Since when did FOX News care about protecting our civil liberties? Was that after they defended the Bush Administration’s wiretapping abuses or perhaps before they joined-in with the “we are a Christian nation” nonsense?

  • http://www.HelpMeImpeachBush.com Help Me Impeach Bush

    I read somewhere that this appointment would put a military man in charge of every intelligence agency in the USA.

    That’s always nice when you’re fighting WWIII.

    This is yet another instance in the Bush Administration of rewarding failure – Hayden can’t even remember the 4th Amendment, he thinks warrantless spying on Americans is a good idea, and he gets promoted.

  • Graham

    I admit there was a time I liked Fox News. Pre 9/11, at least. I still watch some of the libertarians on there, like Jonathan Hoenig (who said on air he voted badnarik)from the investment shows and Judge Napolitano.

    However, a majority of Fox News shows and personalities, from the newsreaders, the morning show hosts, even the weathermen, and of course the anchors, are nothing but kool-Aid drinking Bush cheerleaders. Comparing being critical of Fox news to being a member of MoveOn is like saying being critical of Bush is “un-libertarian.”

  • foxnewlieslegal

    Surprise!

    (#11) The Media Can Legally Lie

    In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

    http://projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

  • Scott

    “no warrants issue, but upon probable cause”

    You only need probably cause for a warrant. He must mean he’s planning on doing warrantless searches.

  • Charles

    What wiretapping abuses are you referring to? The NSA program is not a wiretapping abuse. It is a duly authorized program and always has been. The only controversy is the misleading portrayal given by extreme left Democrats that want to undermine any effort of the Bush administration to affect the coming elections.
    How long must we endure these misleading portrayals that have no legitamacy what so ever.

  • Mitchell Port

    How can anybody who made those comments get a top job in Washington? I hope to see another drop in approval ratings for Bush.

  • Torfinn “the Mighty”

    Yet more asshattery.

    The NSA program we speak of completely disregards everything we stand for as a country. THere is no oversight, there is no protection for citizens, and there is no justification worthy of even considering problem 1 and 2.

    Charles, if you want to live in a socialist country that has protections for it’s citizens that it simply undermines I suggest you move out of MY country and go somewhere that doesn’t have a constitution or bill of rights.

    Outside of that, please stop trying to justify abuses of my FREE country and it’s citizens.

    I’ve yet to see this extreme left portrayal you speak of, all I know is that the entire oversight process is being circumvented, the amendments in place to protect us from being spied on are being brashly ignored, and noone seems to have any power to do anything about it.

    I don’t remember voting on whether or not we wanted to stay a free country or have gestappo like police/intelligence services, do you?

  • Rhampton

    Feds Drop Bomb on EFF LawsuitThe federal government intends to invoke the rarely used “State Secrets Privilege” — the legal equivalent of a nuclear bomb — in the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s class action lawsuit against AT&T that alleges the telecom collaborated with the government’s secret spying on American citizens … The complete paperwork justifying the government’s decision will be filed by May 12.

  • Scott

    Charles,
    Remember at one point slavery was not only legal but upheld by the supreme court. Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. For the record I voted for Bush, but only because he was the lesser of two evils.

  • Timothy West

    Damn, if he was the lesser evil I’d like to see the bigger one.

  • Pingback: Hammer of Truth()

  • http://disvoter.blogspot.com The Disenfranchised Voter

    Oh jesus christ, who let the Bush-bots here?

    Get away “backwash”! Go polish your jackboots or something.

    Thank you for reminding us about how much of an attrotious pick Hayden is. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket because of the Bush Administration.

    The fuckin Democrats damn well better grow a pair and block this nomination.

  • Pingback: Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity()

  • Mitchell Port

    Scott you are very misinformed. There is no such thing as a wasted vote, and you should not vote for the lesser of two evils:
    http://chelm.freeyellow.com/wastedvote.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/hooper1.html
    http://yearningtobreathefree.blogspot.com/2006/04/another-poke-at-wast ed-vote-myth.html

    Here are some highlights:
    “A Presidential race will never be decided by one vote. And if by some mathematical chance it got that close, it would be decided through the Courts and through lawsuits (as the 2000 election was decided).”
    “Even if once in your life you missed the chance to cast that mythical deciding ballot, the harm from selecting the wrong person in one election is more than offset by a lifetime of giving voter support to the lesser of two evils rather than standing up for what you believe.”
    you’d have to vote for a very long time ”“ 230 million years ”“ to swing one election and all you’d have to show for it is a Bush in the White House instead of a Kerry.”

  • Mitchell Port

    Continued…
    “Even if he would be willing to pay $10,000 to determine the winner in November, the expected value (probability times value) of his vote for Kerry is only $0.00017. Americans won’t even stoop to pick up a penny on the ground yet every four years they happily cast votes worth one fiftieth as much.”
    “it is clear that no third-party candidate will win the 2004 election, but my friend’s support would certainly help his favorite political party stay in business and therefore get noticed.”
    “likely, as any third party becomes successful, the Democrats and Republicans will simply adopt that party’s platforms.”
    “Your one vote has the same power to affect the results whether you vote for a major or minor candidate, but a vote for the candidate you respect and agree with gives you the expectation of a better outcome.”

    Your vote means NOTHING, so why would you use it to vote for Bush, when it could mean a lot more if you voted for Badnarik?

  • http://warcriminal.freeservers.com Sol

    That’s what happens when you have a retard as president. He appoints another retard to head the CIA.

  • http://none Glinda

    Thanks for posting this, Mr. Gordon!
    PS, Olbermann has two Ns (to remind one to linger lovingly when pronouncing it. :-)