CIA, perhaps minus the 'I'

[Sobeh]

Oh dear. Seems the new nominee for head of the CIA here in the United States is a bit unclear on what exactly the fourth amendment means.

Here is a link for the video, and I've pasted the actual text below:

"Amendment IV

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."

[Binkie]

Hayden is actually on the mark. The NSA and FBI have conducted wiretaps and searches of homes that were warrantless. The only thing that probable cause plays into, according to the fourth amendment, is warrants to search people, houses, papers, yadda, yadda, yadda... The NSA did not need warrants under Bush to tap phones (in certain cases). The FBI did not need warrants under Clinton to search homes (in certain cases).

So he actually is correct, because apparently you don't NEED a warrant to search these things (in certain cases). But if you do it through a warrant, you NEED probable cause.

[Dead Angel]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Hayden is actually on the mark. The NSA and FBI have conducted wiretaps and searches of homes that were warrantless. The only thing that probable cause plays into, according to the fourth amendment, is warrants to search people, houses, papers, yadda, yadda, yadda... The NSA did not need warrants under Bush to tap phones (in certain cases). The FBI did not need warrants under Clinton to search homes (in certain cases).

So he actually is correct, because apparently you don't NEED a warrant to search these things (in certain cases). But if you do it through a warrant, you NEED probable cause.

What is '(in certain cases) mean?

I'm confused as to what you mean by that. What defines a time when warrents are not usable.

[Binkie]

When the Justice Department/Attorney General goes through the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," which specifies that you don't need a court order to post surveillance on certain persons (notably people who work for foreign powers).

Both Clinton and Carter have issued Executive Orders that permitted the Justice Department to conduct searches without court orders/warrants in the past.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

You also don't need a warrant to search people that aren't u.s. citizens.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I remembered a joke:

How do you know the CIA wasn't involved in Kennedy's assassination?




He's dead, isn't he?

[CptSternn]

Thought this was a good article...

CIA interrogators 'sign up for liability cover'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...6-1702,00.html

MANY CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, The Washington Post reported today.

Citing unnamed current and former intelligence officials, the newspaper said the trend reflected heightened anxiety at the Central Intelligence Agency that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct.

They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the report said.

The Post said the anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons, in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning.

The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes, the paper said.

President George W. Bush announced last week that he had transferred the last 14 detainees from secret CIA prisons abroad to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressed his determination to try them.

But defence attorneys for the suspects are expected to argue that admissions made by their clients were illegally coerced as the result of policies set in Washington, The Post said.

Thats right - the CIA now has special 'insurance' its interegators can take out, so if they are accused of torture or war-crimes, they will be defended in court.

Basically, they now have removed all legal barriers for torture. Don't worry about the law, you have a huge legal fund to keep this out of court if anyone ever tries to blame you for war-crimes or torturing people.

Thats what america needs - tourture insurance. What a better way to show the world your not invloved in torturing suspects than giving all of your cia operatives insurance to cover any costs in case they are accused of violating human rights.

[Binkie]

That's nice, but it's completely off topic.

[CptSternn]

An article on the CIA in the thread about the CIA?

[Binkie]

This isn't the CIA megathread, idiot. It's about wiretaps and statements being made by the new CIA cheif. You know, you actually have to read more than just the title of the thread to know what it's about.