Netphoria Message Board


Go Back   Netphoria Message Board > Archives > General Chat Archive
Register Netphoria's Amazon.com Link Members List Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-04-2007, 01:41 PM   #1
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
Exclamation First phone calls, now mail too - new postal law lets Bush peek through your mail

W pushes envelope on U.S. spying
New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-408789c.html

President Bush added a "signing statement" in recently passed postal reform bill that may give him new powers to pry into your mail - without a warrant.

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.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 01:49 PM   #2
RopeyLopey
Braindead
 
RopeyLopey's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,490
Default

I wonder what is BlueStar's opinion about this

 
RopeyLopey is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 01:53 PM   #3
rocksteady
Banned
 
rocksteady's Avatar
 
Location: where the women have nothing on but the radio. turned up to ten. too loud for me to think.
Posts: 1,211
Default

what the hell. if it's that important, GET A FUCKING WARRANT.

 
rocksteady is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 01:56 PM   #4
Aeroplane
Minion of Satan
 
Aeroplane's Avatar
 
Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA
Posts: 8,579
Default

let's just throw all the rules out the window. yeah, that'll solve all our problems.

 
Aeroplane is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 01:57 PM   #5
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by RopeyLopey
I wonder what is BlueStar's opinion about this
Generally, the way a lot of conversations begin is that someone (A) brings up a topic. Then other people (B, C, D, etc.) chime in about that topic (things they know about it, their opinions, etc.), and then the original someone (A) interacts with B, C, D, etc, and adds more to it and shares his/her opinion. Or at least that's how non-conversation-hoggers do it. And, oddly enough, if you read the other threads on this board where the first post is an article, there is also no opinion offered in the initial post.

Last edited by BlueStar : 01-04-2007 at 02:06 PM.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 01:58 PM   #6
wHATcOLOR
THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!
 
wHATcOLOR's Avatar
 
Location: || MY NAME IS KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID ROCK!!
Posts: 47,245
Default

i don't even open my mail, at least someone might open it now

 
wHATcOLOR is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 01:59 PM   #7
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
Arrow

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

-Benjamin Franklin

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 02:09 PM   #8
RopeyLopey
Braindead
 
RopeyLopey's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStar
Generally, the way a lot of conversations begin is that someone (A) brings up a topic. Then other people (B, C, D, etc.) chime in about that topic (things they know about it, their opinions, etc.), and then the original someone (A) interacts with B, C, D, etc, and adds more to it and shares his/her opinion. Or at least that's how non-conversation-hoggers do it.
Generally, if someone approaches me with an urge of reading something, I would like to know why I should read it, what's the stance of the person who wants me to read it.

It's the same with picking up the phone: if someone calls me, I say 'yes?' and the caller introduces himself and says what he wants. Because it is the other person who wants something from me (the one calling me or in this case you wanting me to read this article), I shouldn't be put at the dis-advantage of revealing my identity/thoughts first before you do - because we are talking about something YOU want from ME, not the other way round.

 
RopeyLopey is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 02:12 PM   #9
rocksteady
Banned
 
rocksteady's Avatar
 
Location: where the women have nothing on but the radio. turned up to ten. too loud for me to think.
Posts: 1,211
Default

also, gotta love the alarmist tone of the article's headline and the fact that it directly contradicts the article itself.

 
rocksteady is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 02:15 PM   #10
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RopeyLopey
Generally, if someone approaches me with an urge of reading something, I would like to know why I should read it, what's the stance of the person who wants me to read it.
Fair enough. However, I must insist that you (and the others that make similar comments) go into all the threads on this board created by other posters where there is also not necessarily an opinion offered in the original post (which, again, is how most of the threads on this board are) and pester them about not immediately and obviously disclosing their opinions in the original post.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 03:31 PM   #11
homechicago
Apocalyptic Poster
 
homechicago's Avatar
 
Location: THIS IS IT!
Posts: 2,921
Default

suprise, president 1984 is nixonian in his paranoia power trip.

worst american president ever (my opinion). most americans want us out of the war, he wants to send more citizens to needless deaths in a foreign country he knows little about other than its a war profiteers dream come true. how many more millions of dollars do the heads of blackwater, caci, titan and kbr need this year? do these "christians" understand what it is that earns you a ticket to hell? heaven's passage surely isn't permissible with a high death toll and torture list.

how did the conservative party get duped into electing this life, liberty and money wasting fool twice?

 
homechicago is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 03:55 PM   #12
Mariner
OB-GYN Kenobi
 
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
Default

because we're all too busy being comfortable and ignorant

 
Mariner is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 07:25 PM   #13
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady
also, gotta love the alarmist tone of the article's headline and the fact that it directly contradicts the article itself.
Exactly. I still don't understand why people get so worked up over these "signing statements." The law says the government can't open your mail without a warrant. Bush signed it. That's that. The government can't open your mail without a warrant.

Just because Bush decided to write a little paragraph along with his signature saying that he thinks he can still order mail to be opened in emergency situations it doesn't mean that the law itself authorizes that. Maybe he has the power as President to order your mail to be opened, or maybe he doesn't...but the signing statement doesn't affect that in any way. It doesn't give him any power he didn't have before.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 07:30 PM   #14
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

Yeah, why cant you guys just trust that W wont overstep his authority and violate peoples rights.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 07:53 PM   #15
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Boy
Yeah, why cant you guys just trust that W wont overstep his authority and violate peoples rights.
It has nothing to do with trust. He either has the authority to do certain things, or he doesn't, and in cases of doubt it'll probably be up to the courts to decide. But its not a deal where we know that the President can't open mail in an emergency and he's saying he might do it anyway. For all we know, he might actually have that authority in the first place. Presidential powers are tricky like that.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 08:02 PM   #16
Mayfuck
Banned
 
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by RopeyLopey
Generally, if someone approaches me with an urge of reading something, I would like to know why I should read it, what's the stance of the person who wants me to read it.

It's the same with picking up the phone: if someone calls me, I say 'yes?' and the caller introduces himself and says what he wants. Because it is the other person who wants something from me (the one calling me or in this case you wanting me to read this article), I shouldn't be put at the dis-advantage of revealing my identity/thoughts first before you do - because we are talking about something YOU want from ME, not the other way round.
Her opinions and stance on issues are heavily implied by the articles she posts anyway. Why would an anti-gun person here post an article quoting a study that says gun control has no effect on gun crime?

 
Mayfuck is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 08:04 PM   #17
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
It has nothing to do with trust. He either has the authority to do certain things, or he doesn't, and in cases of doubt it'll probably be up to the courts to decide. But its not a deal where we know that the President can't open mail in an emergency and he's saying he might do it anyway. For all we know, he might actually have that authority in the first place. Presidential powers are tricky like that.


Really? Cause it seems like he thinks they're absolute. We're at war man! Get with the program.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 08:14 PM   #18
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Boy
Really? Cause it seems like he thinks they're absolute. We're at war man! Get with the program.
Well sure, he would think they're absolute wouldn't he? But the point is that the power he thinks he has isn't nearly as important as the power he does have.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 08:34 PM   #19
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

See, I think theres a lot of damage that a drunk driver can do before the cops pull him over. Its not that what he thinks is dangerous, is that he is in a position to act on it.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 08:48 PM   #20
RopeyLopey
Braindead
 
RopeyLopey's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayfuck
Her opinions and stance on issues are heavily implied by the articles she posts anyway. Why would an anti-gun person here post an article quoting a study that says gun control has no effect on gun crime?
why do I have this picture of Bluestar in my mind, her carrying a folder of newspaper articles, where whatever I say to her, she looks into the folder and gives me a newspaper article written by someone else as a response, with nothing else said?

Also, I guess persons B, C, and D have already posted, yet what we heard from her back were only two posts:
1) the one telling me she's waiting for persons B, C, and D to reply
and behold
2) another citation of Benjamin Franklin

I don't know about you Mayfuck, but I am pretty much capable of reading books and newspaper on my own

 
RopeyLopey is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 08:55 PM   #21
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Default

I think the articles are fine. Its not like shes spamming the board with them.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 09:15 PM   #22
Nate the Grate
Minion of Satan
 
Nate the Grate's Avatar
 
Posts: 6,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corganist
Exactly. I still don't understand why people get so worked up over these "signing statements." The law says the government can't open your mail without a warrant. Bush signed it. That's that. The government can't open your mail without a warrant.

Just because Bush decided to write a little paragraph along with his signature saying that he thinks he can still order mail to be opened in emergency situations it doesn't mean that the law itself authorizes that. Maybe he has the power as President to order your mail to be opened, or maybe he doesn't...but the signing statement doesn't affect that in any way. It doesn't give him any power he didn't have before.
You're seriously understating the importance, or rather the intent, of the signing statement. The point isn't just to express his opinion, the point is to alter the meaning of the law, so that Bush himself is the intrepreter of the law. The signing statement doesn't change the law, but it changes the way the law is interpreted. I've never really understood how signing statements and executive orders are constitutional, as they both seem to violate the balance of powers.

 
Nate the Grate is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 09:17 PM   #23
RopeyLopey
Braindead
 
RopeyLopey's Avatar
 
Posts: 15,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Boy
I think the articles are fine. Its not like shes spamming the board with them.
I am not questioning the quality of the articles she posts. I just would appreciate if she would put more of her into those posts. When I see BlueStar has posted, I expect some article....and nothing else.

 
RopeyLopey is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 09:18 PM   #24
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Boy
See, I think theres a lot of damage that a drunk driver can do before the cops pull him over. Its not that what he thinks is dangerous, is that he is in a position to act on it.
You have a point. But I think there's very little overreaching the President can do that checks and balances cannot correct in due time. If Bush gets evidence against someone through wiretapping or peeking in someone's mail and it turns out he really didn't have power to do so, I'm confident that evidence and everything derived from it would be thrown out. Granted, there may be some loss of liberty in the meantime, but that's what lawsuits are for.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 09:21 PM   #25
Future Boy
The Man of Tomorrow
 
Future Boy's Avatar
 
Posts: 26,965
Exclamation

I hear that any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. I forget who said it though.

 
Future Boy is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 09:30 PM   #26
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the Grate
You're seriously understating the importance, or rather the intent, of the signing statement. The point isn't just to express his opinion, the point is to alter the meaning of the law, so that Bush himself is the intrepreter of the law. The signing statement doesn't change the law, but it changes the way the law is interpreted. I've never really understood how signing statements and executive orders are constitutional, as they both seem to violate the balance of powers.
The executive branch already has to interpret every law in order to execute it. The signing statement just gives everyone a heads up on how they're going to do it. They could do things the exact same way with or without the signing statement. If anything, the signing statements are a nice nod to transparency in government. The President could just interpret these laws his own way and not make a point to tell anyone about it.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-04-2007, 09:34 PM   #27
Corganist
Minion of Satan
 
Corganist's Avatar
 
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Boy
I hear that any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. I forget who said it though.
All I'm saying is that sometimes its inevitable that a branch of government has to overstep its bounds before one of the other branches knock it back into its place. There may be some damage in the meantime, but in the end everyone's better for it because the bounds of power end up clearly defined.

 
Corganist is offline
Old 01-05-2007, 12:49 PM   #28
BlueStar
Newly independent
 
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
Default

Another article - this one delves more into the debate over the whole thing...

Bush Warned About Mail-Opening Authority
Recent 'Signing Statement' Seen as Stretching Law

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 5, 2007; A03
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401702_pf.html

President Bush signed a little-noticed statement last month asserting the authority to open U.S. mail without judicial warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases, prompting warnings yesterday from Democrats and privacy advocates that the administration is attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on its powers.

A "signing statement" attached to a postal reform bill on Dec. 20 says the Bush administration "shall construe" a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

White House and U.S. Postal Service officials said the statement was not intended to expand the powers of the executive branch but merely to clarify existing ones for extreme cases.

"This is not a change in law, this is not new, it is not . . . a sweeping new power by the president," spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the president of the United States."

But some civil liberties and national-security law experts said the statement's language is unduly vague and appears to go beyond long-recognized limits on the ability of the government to open letters and other U.S. mail without approval from a judge.

Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, said the government has long been able to legally open mail believed to contain a bomb or other imminent threat. But authorities are generally required to seek a warrant from a criminal or special intelligence court in other cases, Martin and other experts said.

"The administration is playing games about warrants," Martin said. "If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?"

Administration critics said they were particularly confused because the relevant portion of the postal reform legislation -- which prohibits opening mail without warrants in most circumstances -- remains unchanged.

A White House official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the signing statement, first revealed by the New York Daily News, was intended only to make clear that the new law would not limit the ability of the president or attorney general to open mail under emergency provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs spying in the United States. That law allows authorities to conduct searches and surveillance without warrants in emergency situations, although they must apply for a warrant later.

"The point was that because Congress was passing this anew, the concern was that there would be some confusion," the official said. "The law that's been around since 1978 still allows you to conduct warrantless physical searches under some circumstances, and nothing changes that authority."

The debate over the signing statement comes after disclosures over the past year that Bush authorized a program that allows the National Security Agency to monitor telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and other countrieswithout court oversight. The administration has strongly defended the legality of the NSA spying program, arguing that Congress authorized it as part of the war on al-Qaeda and, even if it had not, that the president has the power to order such surveillance.

In addition to searching for a bomb or other hazardous device, postal officials are legally allowed to open letters that cannot be delivered as addressed, but only to find a correct destination for the parcel. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are also allowed to obtain authority from postal inspectors to track mail without opening it.

The latest statement caused a small ruckus on Capitol Hill yesterday just as Democrats were taking control of Congress. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the statement a "last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law."

Sharp limits have been placed on the government's power to open mail since the 1970s, when a congressional committee investigating abuses found that, for three decades, the CIA and FBI had illegally opened hundreds of thousands of pieces of U.S. mail. Among the targets were "large numbers of American dissidents, including those who challenged the condition of racial minorities and those who opposed the war in Vietnam," according to a report by the Senate panel, known as the Church committee. Also surveilled was "the mail of Senators, Congressmen, journalists, businessmen, and even a Presidential candidate," the report said.

During his tenure, Bush has made plentiful use of signing statements, which are issued along with a president's signature on legislation. Although previous presidents used them as guidance for the executive branch, Bush has offered revised interpretations of laws on constitutional or national security grounds in some of his statements.

 
BlueStar is offline
Old 01-05-2007, 06:11 PM   #29
KrazeeStacee
Registered User
 
KrazeeStacee's Avatar
 
Location: Sherwood Forest
Posts: 21,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the Grate
You're seriously understating the importance, or rather the intent, of the signing statement. The point isn't just to express his opinion, the point is to alter the meaning of the law, so that Bush himself is the intrepreter of the law. The signing statement doesn't change the law, but it changes the way the law is interpreted. I've never really understood how signing statements and executive orders are constitutional, as they both seem to violate the balance of powers.
Well said.

This kinda gets more into it (from cnn)


...
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association.

Typically, presidents have used signing statements for such purposes as instructing executive agencies how to carry out new laws.

Bush's statements often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," ABA president Michael Greco has said.

The practice, he added, "is harming the separation of powers."

The president's action was first reported by the New York Daily News.

The full signing statement said:

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

 
KrazeeStacee is offline
Old 01-05-2007, 06:31 PM   #30
rocksteady
Banned
 
rocksteady's Avatar
 
Location: where the women have nothing on but the radio. turned up to ten. too loud for me to think.
Posts: 1,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrazeeStacee
"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.
seriously, this doesn't say shit about shit.

 
rocksteady is offline
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Google


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 AM.




Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022