If your intentions are good...

Newsflash: the guy who's (presumably) going to take over the CIA says that the government's spying measures were done only with the best intentions.

This isn't a surprise to me - Hayden wouldn't have been nominated if he wasn't going to rush to the defense of whatever the government is doing. And, just as a brief experiment, I'm going to go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt: Maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe everyone involved truly believes that the surveillance being done is nessecary. Maybe they do always have probable cause before tapping someones line or reading their e-mails or whatnot. That is wholly possible, and while it's not the most natural for me to grant the government anything unless they've convinced me, I'll force myself into that way of thinking for once. If the guys at the CIA or NSA or whatever thought they had a solid, concrete threat, they'd do what they do. If there was doubt, they don't. Maybe if any of the higher-ups say, "No, I'm not convinced that this guy is a threat," they'd leave him be. If they said, "Yeah, this is setting off some severe warning bells," then they'd start watching closer, listening in.

Okay. That's better than just going crazy with the spy stuff. At least they'd have a reason, something that, if questioned, they could produce or at least allude to: "We have reason to believe that this guy had links with this terrorist cell, and we did what we had to for national security." That's progress.

But we're not there yet. I'm not happy with that little idealistic picture I just painted. Why?

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.

Amendment four. Emphasis is, of course, mine. Remember the concept of warrents?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment six. If someone is accusing of something, be it lifting a 99-cent candybar from 7-11 or terrorism and conspiracy, you have the right to be informed of the accusation. (There's also, if you'll note, some stuff about "speedy and public trial" and "jury", which may not entirely fit with America's current policy of 'lock them up indefinitely in Cuba, but I digress.)

Is that my own personal interpretation that Hayden is laughing in the face of the Bill of Rights this way? Yes, absolutely. I'm fairly certain that there's some precedent to back me up, but what the hell do I know? I'm not a lawyer or a scholar. I do know, however, that if we put people into high-ranking positions, and those people don't like to follow the spirit of the Constitution (justice, liberty, equality, all that jazz), then what the hell are they trying to protect us from? People who hate our justice and liberty and equality?