Last year a poll revealed that most Americans have no idea what rights are contained in the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution - the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is supposedly taught in social studies and civics classes. However, when 20% of poll respondents believe the Bill of Rights guarantees the right to own pets or to drive, I have to believe that many Americans are clueless as to the rights they are guaranteed by the Constitution. And if you don’t know the rights granted to you, you can’t know what the government takes away from you when they limit those rights.

Discussion:

http://wnyprogressreport.wnymedia.net/blogs/2007/01/07/return-of-know-your-rights-the-4th-amendment/

Poll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201726.html

***

General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, talked with reporters about the current controversy surrounding the National Security Agency's warrantless monitoring of communications of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. Hayden has been in this position since last April, but was NSA director when the NSA monitoring program began in 2001.

As the last journalist to get in a question, Jonathan Landay, a well-regarded investigative reporter for Knight Ridder, noted that Gen. Hayden repeatedly referred to the Fourth Amendment's search standard of "reasonableness" without mentioning that it also demands "probable cause." Hayden seemed to deny that the amendment included any such thing, or was simply ignoring it.

Here is the exchange, along with the entire Fourth Amendment at the end.

***

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.

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 of 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.

***

Here's the Fourth Amendment: "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. "

A new Gallup poll released Monday showed that 51% of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the U.S. without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program.

Link:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/eavesdropping_general_reveals_shaky_grip_4th_amend.htm

I too was thinking about the so-called free market. Isn't interesting how silent the right-wingers have been on the federal bail out of Bear Stearns? The fed just gave them 200 billion to keep them from going bankrupt, and not a peep. What about letting the market decide things? Shouldn't people and companies be responsible for their actions and have to live with the consequences? I guess that only applies when you are one of the little people. You got into a mortgage you couldn't afford, accept the consequences for your actions. A investment bank issues billions in loans without checking to see if people could pay those loans, then you deserve a federal bail out. Next time someone says we have a free-market in this country, use the fed bail out of Bear Stearns to set them straight.

Don't bother; it'll give you a headache and you will have learned absolutely nothing new.

I'm polishing my golf clubs and feeding the birds.

And, taking Celery's advice, I'll make it a point to feed the baby squirrels. With the bank problems, there may not be enough nuts for any of us next winter, never mind little rodents.

Have you read Dr Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" yet? ... These people are authoritarian followers and their "side" is the neo-cons. ...

I've spent enough time online arguing with drug warriors and fundies to have a pretty good idea that their "morality" was quite flexible and their reasoning ability nearly nil, but reading the results of decades of research into the mindset of authoritarian followers was illuminating to me.

There are "authoritarian" minded people on all sides of the political spectrum; not just the neo-cons. The neo-cons are the worst disaster to hit the USA in a long time, but they are far, far from being the only horror. Similarly with religious literalists that think their little book contains the very word of God; they are deluded but far from the only ones deluded. As the Sufi say, "a donkey heavily loaded with holy books is still just a donkey." :-) Consider the fools who think that the former Governor of New York was a little angel while a prosecutor. They are so biased against business that they believe anyone who charges a businessman with wrongdoing. I oppose corporations receiving any benefit from government at all; but let us do everything in a constitutional manner.

But back to the main point; why would a news magazine publish obvious propaganda and falsehoods as Glenn has proven? They know they will be caught at it.