So as we speak Feinstein is questioning General Hayden about his views on the 4th amendment. Hayden, correctly stated that the fourth amendment requires reasonableness. Feinstein asks him to clarify and he says that in general the requirement is reasonable but the standard for warrants is probable cause. Then Feinstein accuses him of inserting his own standard and alleges that reasonableness isn’t part of the constitution.

Shall we look at the constitution?

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.

Now maybe Feinstein is just fumbling her words and meant to say that Hayden is substituting his judgment of what is reasonable for what the courts have said is reasonable. If so this was totally out of conversational context (no lead up just a random comment that was inserted into the flow of conversation as if it belonged). However, given all the people who have criticized Hayden for talking about reasonableness I think there is a good chance she just doesn’t know her constitution.

Maybe I’m being harsh but the more I hear Feinstein in hearings the more I dislike her. She seems to be all about vague emotional appeals and fuzzy unanalyzed direction. On the other hand the more I hear from Feingold the more I like him.