Bush reading our mail ?!?
flywallyfly
Posts: 1,453
WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
"Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.
"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."
Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.
Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."
Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority.
"In certain circumstances - such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' - the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.
Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" which could refer to an imminent danger or a longstanding state of emergency.
Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.
But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.
Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
"Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.
"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."
A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."
Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.
Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."
Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority.
"In certain circumstances - such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' - the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.
Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" which could refer to an imminent danger or a longstanding state of emergency.
Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.
But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.
Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Hehehe! Cheney reads it to him during storytime! Little Georgie climbs up into Uncle Dick's lap, sticks his thumb in his mouth, and starts giggling.
Agreed. This, alone, doesn't seem like a huge deal for most people. They get bills, statements, subscription and credit card offers, catalogs and other assorted junk mail. Why should they care if the gov't wants to look through it? But this is just a further erosion of our privacy and liberty. It has happened inch by inch and all in the name of security. People should be appalled. I'm afraid they'll just be apathetic.
too late
So far, no one has challenged him on any of them (that I know of). Until that happens, he will keep signing away.
the only change that will happen is the R is replaced with the D, they are both sold to the highest bidder.
Hillary, McCain, Obama, whoever, are probably thinking to themselves: man, I can't wait til I can do that!
The only challenge will come from the citizenry and then through the courts. Which, should show their independence from the other branches of government and declare all signing statements unconstitutional.
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.
If it keeps terrorists fucks from attacking us then the govt can read my mail, listen to my phone calls, come take a blood samples, photograph my dog etc. I'm willing to sacrifice some privacy to keep our people safe.
Well I care. Even if they just see the bills I don't WANT them to see how much I spent on the Pearl Jam 2006 tour! On a slightly more serious note I do care. I'm not sure what else to do though, except vote for people who wouldn't support this.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
sweet fanny moses...are you really that afraid....?
It must suck to be that scared.
these people want us dead, they want our country wiped off the earth. I'd say we do what we have to do in order to keep our citizens safe. Yes it sucks to give up some of our privacy but I still say that it is worth it if we can prevent another 9/11 from happening.
wow...do you even leave your house...?
by the way, what's your real name, address, and email address (with password)...since you don't mind random people looking through your mail, you should have no problem sharing...right...
Yes I leave my house and honestly I'm not afraid of really anyone or anything. I believe that when its your time its your time, but the point i'm making and the one you're not seeming to grasp is that if we can keep people from being killed by these idiots by letting the govt read through peoples mail that they suspect to be terrorists, then so be it.
To answer your question about my name, address etc. If the govt wants to look through my stuff then they're welcome. They are elected by us and represent us, you don't!
Suddenly the terrorists don't scare me anymore. You do.
so you trust everyone who works for the gov't...? good luck with that...
then again, perhaps you're right...I'm sure bin laden sends holiday and birthday cards in the mail...with treasure maps and secret codes that can only be deciphered with a ovaltine decoder ring....
yeah, we are soo much safer today....
No, I don't trust everyone who works for the govt, but I also don't give a fuck if they read my mail...put yourself in their shoes. How do you prevent terrorists attacks when you have terrorists living in the country they want to attack?
You're entitled to think what you want and I won't attack your beliefs, but I do think we are safer today.
Really?
IMHO anti-American sentiment is at an all time high....or at the very least appears to be....honestly a terrorist has to be an idiot to send anything noteworthy through the mail....just gives me another reason to laugh at this hopeless administration....clueless
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
that's cool...
I have to ask, do you really, honestly think that bin laden is sending this in the mail to evil-doers in the US...?
I'm pretty sure one of the many great and wonderful things about this country is the right to privacy...do you want to change that..?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
If Bin Laden is communicating to any would be terrorists in this country how do you think he is doing it? I mean if they are going to carry out some massive attack they would have to communicate with them somehow right? I don't know the answer to this, maybe you do?
I don't want to change our right to privacy, but like i've said, if it keeps people from being killed then the govt can look and see how much i owe to visa or whatever floats their boat.
Is it acceptable to open mail for any reason, as long as there is a criminal offense involved or do you draw the line at terrorism?
Should the government be able to show up at your door and start searching, you know, just to be sure you arent a terrorist?
If the government suspects that Bin Laden is sending so-and-so person a christmas card, all they need to do is go to a FISA court and get a warrant. This process is secret, therefore niether so-and-so nor bin Laden know about it.
Please explain to me why this won't work? Please explain to me why, to find one terrorist (you know, one at the time), do they need to go through each person's Visa bill? Now, I don't personally believe that they're going to read your mail or my mail, because I have no links to terrorrism. So, whose letters are they going to open without a warrant? The ones that they have reasons to suspect, right? I that case... why don't they just GET a warrant?
smoke signals and two soup cans with string....
sounds good, after a warrent is obtained, that is...while I'm a fan a privacy, I'm also a fan of checks and balances...
This Bill exposes us to a very dangerous situation.
Was it the government sending anthrax through the mail? No, but it was removed from a secured facility and look how much mail was contaminated by one letter. Sickness and death did occur. I hope the people on Capitol Hill remember what happen to them. It should remind them how easy it was to target a specific person and place.
Procedures for suspicious packages and mail are already in place across the U.S. Additional, safety checks were put in place in all Post Offices to prevent another anthrax event, Bush's Bill takes that safety net away and the justification of terrorists is not enough for me.
If tampered mail comes to us, are we to automatically assume it was the government that opened it. Anyone can now place a tampered envelop in your box with deadly consequences because your now in a mindset that - hey the government must have opened my mail. I bet the Unabomber is sitting in jail pissed at this missed opportunity.
This is not a support Bush issue, or a Democratic vs Republican issue, it's not about who reads your mail issue. It's about exposing the public to a greater risk than that which you are charged to protect us from.
I'm not into scare tactics and I don't lay awake thinking about what terrorists are plotting that's our government's responsibility. We have provided this Administration with the tools to protect us. When a tool (this Bill) has the potential to place the public at unnecessary risk, its a tool that should be taken away.
The lessons learned from the anthrax scare, showed the danger of playing with bio-agents and how they can take on a whole new face once that jeannie is out of the bottle. Frankly, I don't want some pissed off politician playing footsie with my life to prove a, -see, see, I told you so - point.
The thing about Democracy that people have forgotten is that - no ONE person is absolute - regardless of their title. Laws can be repelled and Congress needs to step up to the plate and rein this one in.