|
|
Register | Netphoria's Amazon.com Link | Members List | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-04-2007, 01:41 PM | #1 |
Newly independent
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
|
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. |
|
01-04-2007, 01:49 PM | #2 |
Braindead
Posts: 15,490
|
I wonder what is BlueStar's opinion about this
|
|
01-04-2007, 01:53 PM | #3 |
Banned
Location: where the women have nothing on but the radio. turned up to ten. too loud for me to think.
Posts: 1,211
|
what the hell. if it's that important, GET A FUCKING WARRANT.
|
|
01-04-2007, 01:56 PM | #4 |
Minion of Satan
Location: fine. i must finally admit it: LA, CA
Posts: 8,579
|
let's just throw all the rules out the window. yeah, that'll solve all our problems.
|
|
01-04-2007, 01:57 PM | #5 | |
Newly independent
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
|
Quote:
Last edited by BlueStar : 01-04-2007 at 02:06 PM. |
|
|
01-04-2007, 01:58 PM | #6 |
THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!
Location: || MY NAME IS KIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID ROCK!!
Posts: 47,245
|
i don't even open my mail, at least someone might open it now
|
|
01-04-2007, 01:59 PM | #7 |
Newly independent
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
|
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin |
|
01-04-2007, 02:09 PM | #8 | |
Braindead
Posts: 15,490
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
01-04-2007, 02:12 PM | #9 |
Banned
Location: where the women have nothing on but the radio. turned up to ten. too loud for me to think.
Posts: 1,211
|
also, gotta love the alarmist tone of the article's headline and the fact that it directly contradicts the article itself.
|
|
01-04-2007, 02:15 PM | #10 | |
Newly independent
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 03:31 PM | #11 |
Apocalyptic Poster
Location: THIS IS IT!
Posts: 2,921
|
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? |
|
01-04-2007, 03:55 PM | #12 |
OB-GYN Kenobi
Location: the sea
Posts: 17,020
|
because we're all too busy being comfortable and ignorant
|
|
01-04-2007, 07:25 PM | #13 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
01-04-2007, 07:30 PM | #14 |
The Man of Tomorrow
Posts: 26,965
|
Yeah, why cant you guys just trust that W wont overstep his authority and violate peoples rights.
|
|
01-04-2007, 07:53 PM | #15 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 08:02 PM | #16 | |
Banned
Location: i'm from japan also hollywood
Posts: 57,805
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 08:04 PM | #17 | |
The Man of Tomorrow
Posts: 26,965
|
Quote:
Really? Cause it seems like he thinks they're absolute. We're at war man! Get with the program. |
|
|
01-04-2007, 08:14 PM | #18 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 08:34 PM | #19 |
The Man of Tomorrow
Posts: 26,965
|
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.
|
|
01-04-2007, 08:48 PM | #20 | |
Braindead
Posts: 15,490
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
01-04-2007, 08:55 PM | #21 |
The Man of Tomorrow
Posts: 26,965
|
I think the articles are fine. Its not like shes spamming the board with them.
|
|
01-04-2007, 09:15 PM | #22 | |
Minion of Satan
Posts: 6,212
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 09:17 PM | #23 | |
Braindead
Posts: 15,490
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 09:18 PM | #24 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 09:21 PM | #25 |
The Man of Tomorrow
Posts: 26,965
|
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.
|
|
01-04-2007, 09:30 PM | #26 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-04-2007, 09:34 PM | #27 | |
Minion of Satan
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,240
|
Quote:
|
|
|
01-05-2007, 12:49 PM | #28 |
Newly independent
Location: Some state's capitol building
Posts: 7,242
|
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. |
|
01-05-2007, 06:11 PM | #29 | |
Registered User
Location: Sherwood Forest
Posts: 21,296
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
01-05-2007, 06:31 PM | #30 | |
Banned
Location: where the women have nothing on but the radio. turned up to ten. too loud for me to think.
Posts: 1,211
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|