This stuff writes itself

"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."

--Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

From the "you can't make this stuff up" department:

Lt. Gen Michael Hayden, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA) from March 1999 through April 2005 and currently the principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence recently defended the warrantless domestic spying on Americans at the National Press Club. Hayden was NSA Director when the warrantless spying began in 2001 and when pressed on the legal and Constitutional standard to conduct such surveillance gave an explaination that would make proudly uninformed, well, proud.

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.

Like I said, you can't make this stuff up. This from a guy who has a master's degree in American History. Of course it's from Duquesne University and it was modern American history so maybe they didn't study the Bill of Rights. Too ancient. Like the 1978 FISA law that W decided he didn't have to follow because it was so old. Or maybe hayden hasn't ever really read the 4th Amendment but still likes to consider himself an expert on the subject. All that reading is for policy wonks. Too elitist. It's just another example of the truth being murdered by people who are in charge and who should know better. And if they shouldn't know better then they shouldn't be in charge.