Cheney’s Argument?

>"If a policeman came to your house at random, no warrant, nothing, and demanded to search it, would you be right to refuse? If you did, does that mean you must have something to hide? "

Actually, I would look to my Fourth Amendment rights. The circumstances that I do, or do not have something to hide is covered by my Fifth Amendment rights.

Judicial interpretation of “warrant” is justification. To obtain a warrant, a judge or magistrate must be convinced that an offense probably has been committed. Also, there are specific limitations on the warrant, what information that may be legally looked for, and the specifics citing the possible offense committed.

FYI, the protections of the Bill of Rights, are extended to individuals in our society and not to the government. In fact, they were written as a buffer, or protection FROM the government.

In this light, Cheney’s argument doesn’t stand. In fact it shows a great similarity to Tricky Dick’s fear of having a light turned on in a dark room. The burden of openness for the government is certainly greater than that for an individual. The justification needed to examine the basis for public policy does not bear the same burden of proof as for individuals.

Methinks Cheney should recall Harry Truman’s injunction, that if you can’t stand the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen.

It is important, more so with this Enwrong situation, the Whitehouse avoid the appearance of impropriety. With a president riding a crest of popularity, it would behoove Republicans to insist they be as clean as Caesar’s wife and not let one cranky Cheney open a chink in the armor. Even the appearance of wrong doing should be avoided at this time in our history if this Republican administration is to maintain legitimacy.

The facts need to be outed, there are twelve congressional committees presently looking into this and as a nation we need full disclosure from the Whitehouse and get this over with. Stonewalling went out style with Nixon.