Bush says feds can open mail without warrant

[alkemical]

Bush says feds can open mail without warrant

Bush says feds can open mail without warrant

By James Gordon Meek
New York Daily News

WASHINGTON — President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.

Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.

A White House spokeswoman disputed claims that the move gives Bush any new powers, saying the Constitution allows such searches.

Still, the move, one year after The New York Times' disclosure of a secret program that allowed warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mail, 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.

"You have to be concerned," a senior U.S. official agreed. "It takes executive-branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised a review of Bush's move.

"It's something we're going to look into," the aide said.

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane changes. But the legislation also explicitly reinforces 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 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" that could refer to an imminent danger or a long-standing state of emergency.

Critics noted the administration could obtain a warrant quickly from a court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge, and the Postal Service could block delivery.

But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances, national-security experts agreed.

Martin said Bush is "using the same legal reasoning" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

[W*GS]

Typical Bushian BS.

[alkemical]

I know, nothing worse than an "opened" girlie mag, eh?

(wagsy, we may disagree - but we can seemingly only laugh at the absurd, when it seems most don't care to correct it)

[Dudeskey]

Of course... **** it, why don't we just get a black marker and scribble out the 4th amendment... oh wait, Bush left a brown streak over it already.

[alkemical]

I had lots of people tell me when i cited the comments (and video) of bush saying about how easy it would be if this were a dictatorship - to him saying the constitution was 'goddamned piece of paper' -

and mind you - i dont cite bush for all the ills - congrass has a HUGE hand in crafting legislation, etc - **** 'em all

[bendog]

this diplomacy is tough stuff, cause people won't do what ya tell em to.

[Hogan11]

Pffft.

[bendog]

? How can anyone not be pissed at what bushii is trying to do? goper, dem, indep, lib. I mean to say pfft, you need to be brain dead, not paying attention or you just don't give a fick. This doesn't make anyone safer in any way. Even they admit a search warrant/mail delay would only pose a danger in a one in a million chance, in which case if they just went ahead and went w/o the warrant it'd be water under the bridge. But what this is is a blatant power grab by an admin dedicated to expanding the power of the potus beyond even the bill of rights. They're not even tryign to hide that anymore, and that fact is plain from the link itself. They say it.

[alkemical]

I know bendog - but NOBODY GIVES A ****.

which is why i'm prepping to go outside of the US for awhile if need be.

[bendog]

Well, the scanning of phone calls ..... I can maybe see that, but it'd have been nice if they'd have vetted that by the ranking members of the house and senate intell/judiciary committees. I mean they do have means of telling just the top four legislators and keeping secrets.

But they just admit the mail thing is to expand powers for another day ... at which time they'll try to expand powers again ... for the sake of expanding power. Gonzo is not even hiding what his goal is. More power for the potus for the sake of power.

Whether the potus or the congress has the most power ebbs and flows. This admin is tied to Reagan's which expanded potus power. The gop's been playing a pretty decietful role here, though the dems aren't any morally superior bunch. Reagan,,, they up potus power. WJC... they impeach him. Bushii....back to potus power. But, hey, that's the way it works. You live with it.

But bushii isn't even griping with congress over power. He's going directly to the bill of rights.

[alkemical]

Yep i know bendog, but why should i worry eh - after all it's what the people wanted right, they voted for him twice, riiiiight?

[bendog]

Lincoln explicitly, and FDR in practice suspended habeas corpus. Lincoln went too far in shutting down the press, though arguably it was necessary because some in the press with Southern sympathies intentionally printed lies posing as news to hamper the Union's war efforts. FDR simply put security risks in psych hospitals for the duration. Andrew Jackson was ... a thug. He's as close to bushii as I can think of.

[alkemical]

I don't know much about andrew jackson

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

which is why i'm prepping to go outside of the US for awhile if need be.

Where to? Do you think other places will protect your rights more than here? Or perhaps you like your Statism and loss of privacy straight up, instead of semi-hidden as here.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Where to? Do you think other places will protect your rights more than here? Or perhaps you like your Statism and loss of privacy straight up, instead of semi-hidden as here.

Honestly goes along way with me wags......

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

Honestly goes along way with me wags......

One thing you need to consider - leaving the US is easy. Getting into someplace else isn't. I know - I seriously looked at moving overseas last spring. Not at a trivial task.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

One thing you need to consider - leaving the US is easy. Getting into someplace else isn't. I know - I seriously looked at moving overseas last spring. Not at a trivial task.

I've been looking into very seriously. I have some good plus's (my trade, etc) - but i have moved x-country before - so at least i have some exp. in uprooting myself.

[bendog]

Andrew Jackson did two terrible things. The supreme court ruled that Indians had constitutional rights as sort of soverign entitities. In response, Jackson ignored the ruling and killed thousands of them by moving the eastern tribes west. In Mississippi, esp, it was the Choctaws and Cherokee. Secondly he hated the natl bank, so he broke it,a nd in doing so caused the panic of 1837? which until the great depression was the worst econ disaster.

I could do canada, but I hate cold. Some island off fla where I could run off track betting .... ah.....

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

I've been looking into very seriously. I have some good plus's (my trade, etc) - but i have moved x-country before - so at least i have some exp. in uprooting myself.

Places like Europe and Australia, where English is spoken enough to make learning another language not strictly necessary, work very hard to protect their workers from expatriates. It can take months, even years, to get the paperwork through. Other places, where another language is necessary, are far tougher.

Moving cross-country is trivial compared to leaving the country.

[bendog]

There was this canadian chick I coulda married once.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Places like Europe and Australia, where English is spoken enough to make learning another language not strictly necessary, work very hard to protect their workers from expatriates. It can take months, even years, to get the paperwork through. Other places, where another language is necessary, are far tougher.

Moving cross-country is trivial compared to leaving the country.

Oh i very much know this - but i guess it wouldn't be a problem wags. Since no-one here seems to want to put effort into correcting thing, why stay and get my neck cut off

[bendog]

ummm, I dunno. I think Pat Lahey is gonna put the gitmo gizmo to gonzalez's gizzard.

I'm still hopeful that obama will run, too.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

Oh i very much know this - but i guess it wouldn't be a problem wags. Since no-one here seems to want to put effort into correcting thing, why stay and get my neck cut off

Do you think somewhere else is definitely better? Most other European countries don't even offer the pretense of individual rights. Most of what we oppose as unreasonable infringements they accept without question. A goodly portion of the equivalent parts of the USA PATRIOT act has been part of their laws for decades.

Why do you think your chances of "get my neck cut off" are so much less elsewhere? As an expat, you're already knocking yourself down quite a few pegs in regards to their laws and customs - and you'll still have no shortage of obligations to the US governments as well.

Running away may seem safer or easier, but that's naïve.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Do you think somewhere else is definitely better? Most other European countries don't even offer the pretense of individual rights. Most of what we oppose as unreasonable infringements they accept without question. A goodly portion of the equivalent parts of the USA PATRIOT act has been part of their laws for decades.

Why do you think your chances of "get my neck cut off" are so much less elsewhere? As an expat, you're already knocking yourself down quite a few pegs in regards to their laws and customs - and you'll still have no shortage of obligations to the US governments as well.

Running away may seem safer or easier, but that's naïve.

yeah but why stick my neck out for those that don't care or put effort into it wags?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

yeah but why stick my neck out for those that don't care or put effort into it wags?

Why would being an expat gain you any more credibility?