Slashdot Mirror
Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant
don_combatant writes to note that President Bush claimed new powers to search US mail without a warrant. He made this claim in a "signing statement" at the time he signed a postal overhaul bill into law on December 20. The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. According to the article, "A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised a review of Bush's move."
Oh wait, good thing signing statements aren't generally regarded as law, but rather his view of the law.
><));>
Perhaps he should have RTFB?
So, wasn't the new congress going to start trying to do something about these signing statements? Yay for a horrible abuse of the checks and balances that are supposed to be in our system.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
Bush keeps saying he wants everyone to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I don't think "bipartisan" means what he thinks it does. Rather bipartisan appears to mean to him "do it my way" or "because I say so" and "I'm the decider".
Seriously though, and back on topic: Even the American Bar Association has described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our Constitutional system of separation of powers". When is the American public going to wake up on both sides of the isle here? From a Republican standpoint, this administration has gone so far off from Republican ideals, that it is not even funny. Republicans used to be the ones who were for a strong military, smaller government, less government intrusion into our lives and lower taxes and what we have is a military that is weaker and smaller now than it has been in decades, we have the largest federal bureaucracy in the history of the world, fewer Constitutional rights and lower taxes are only for large corporations. From the Democratic side, well..... those guys just got hosed for the last few years and they do not appear smart enough to position anyone capable enough to compete with someone even as unappealing and dangerous to our lives as Bush and Co.
I worry for our future as we have signed away many of our Constitutional rights and protections, we have alienated many foreign countries and allies after squandering perhaps the most support we've ever had in history after 9/11, we are entrenched in a combat zone that has very little positive outcome potential, we are signing away our financial future through one of the largest deficits in history and Cheney is on record as saying deficit spending does not matter.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I wonder how many people would open a piece of crap wrapped and mailed to the President titled "Just returning what you have given us Americans", my guess it would never reach his desk.
AFAIK, the last I checked the legality or effectiveness of signing statements (of which Bush has made hundreds of by now, pretty much attaching one to nearly every bill he has signed since he has been in office) was extremely dubious at best. The second something that tries to play off one of these signing statements goes to court, does anybody really, honestly believe that they would hold any legal water? The bill is the bill, and regardless of what little post-it note that the president attaches to it when he signs it doesn't change that fact.
Honestly, I'm not too worried about it at this point, but I'm sure others will follow up if I am completely off base, as IANAL.
A community-oriented lyrics site
Why, exactly, are we giving any credibility to these totally irrelevant written comments by the President?
Is there any respect (or even understanding) of the process of law in this country anymore?
What's next? If Bush says something three times and crosses his fingers, can he override the Supreme Court?
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
I hope he opens up some first class mail soon, so we can finally get this "signing statement" crap in front of the supreme court.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
The government opens mail all the time looking for drugs. This is not new.
I'm not so surprised that Bush is claiming he can read mail without a warrant as I am that he can read at all.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I thought they did this already anyway? i wonder what they would do if i sent all my letters PGP'd :)
WulframII - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Game
Bush just wants to maximize his chances of winning Ed McMahon's $10 million.
Monstar L
I believe they currently need a warrant. They have dogs sniff, the dogs go berserk, they have probable cause, and they get a warrant.
I believe that's how it's currently done. I may be wrong.
Bush is saying they don't need probably cause-- they can just open it.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Bush keeps pulling BS powers out of his ass based solely on letting him do whatever he wants to do at any given time.
"Hmm... I want to eavesdrop on phone calls, but as the law is written now, I can't. Fortunately, I can use my Presidential Wiretapping Power to authorize warrantless wiretapping!"
"Hmm... I want to torture prisoners to get information that, while not accurate, will support my foreign policy goals. But it's against US and international law. Aha! Super Secret Presidential Rendition Powers!"
And so on. Somebody really needs to tell Bush he can't go to Superdickery.com anymore.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Directly From the article:
================
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
================
Nothing like the media anonymizing you, twisting your words around, and then putting your exact words right afterwards thinking nobody will notice.
Seriously, who can argue that as the person in charge of enforcing the rule of law and "protecting the constitution" that George W. Bush is doing the exact opposite. He's not just not doing it he's actively working to undermine the entire idea of separation of powers and role of the executive branch.
Impeach.
Now.
=tkk
PS See you at GITMO!
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Not that I approve of the idea (I don't -- I don't think it's in the spirit of the search and seizure amendment), but really people! If you don't want the government's prying eye's on your correspondence, why are you having the government deliver it for you anyway? There are other methods of delivering a message for those who seriously need the privacy...
Canada is looking better and better all the time. The US clearly is not the freest nation. I believe Thomas Jefferson is tossing in his grave. His expression, "Those that would give up liberty for security get none and deserve neither," says it all. Bush just wants to be an autocrat. Hopefully, the democrats will put the kibosh on this one.
Gotta admit it, the guy knows how to play the chess game of politics.
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Your mouth is talking. You might want to see to that.
The president has a way of flapping his gums and then letting his aids sort out the facts later. It's kind of like having a CEO running the country.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
From - An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
The State is increasing its powers to monitor citizens - both where they are, and the conversations they have.
This is also the State which is increasingly introducing extra-judicial handling of terrorists - holding them indefinitely without trial, interrogation methods which are tantamount to torture, no access to lawyers, no publication of their status.
This is also the State which has been gradually extending extra-judicial methods (warrantless monitoring, for example) to citizens.
It is my view a State which fails to understand the importance of civil and human rights, for example in this case in its increasing intrusion in private lives, will, *as you would expect*, fail to apply those rights in other areas - in this case, justice for those accused of crimes and they way they are treated.
I encourage everyone, no matter what your political leanings are, that is sick and tired of this president's blatant misuse of executive power, to consider sending a "Memorial of Impeachment" to incoming Speaker Pelosi on January the 15th of this year. You can read more about this, and print out the Memorial (pdf file) at ImpeachForPeace.org. I've already printed mine out, signed it, and got it notarized. It's sitting on my computer desk, waiting for the 15th. I urge everyone to do the same. It may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, and we may be the ones that are able to initiate the impeachment procedure.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
While mail should not be able to be searched just because somebody is under investigation or on a hunch without a court order; mail should be able to be searched with just cause.
Point and case: Some dumbass who was in Basic Combat Training with me in the Army mailed a live round in a paper envelope back to his home. When the post office saw the outline of this live round they opened the envelope, secured the round and arrested the dumbass. Searches like this should be able to happen for safety's sake.
In 1980 I had an incident where a letter that I sent was opened by postal inspectors.
The letter was a joke and had something written on it that was pro-nuclear proliferation. On the outside of the envelope. This was enough excuse for the letter opener to come out and to require the recipient to show up at the Post Office and pick up the letter directly.
If you drop something in the mail, you are exposing the item to being searched and viewed based upon arbitrary criteria. Make no mistake about it.
Mind you, that was during the Carter administration, for any of you partisan boobs out there.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I alreayd wrote this in another post, but let me make the point again: to the extent Mr. Bush is saying "if we think we're looking at a letter bomb, we'll send the bomb squad first and worry about legal issues later", there's no controversy. However, considering past government behaviour under this president I would suspect that they would consider the current general "terrorism" paranoia to be sufficient to make the opening of any piece of mail they have a hunch about "reasonable".
All administrations have been doing this, legally since 1914, but hey, lets bash bush over it anyway. Sheesh.
I predict he attach a signing statement to the effect that
"The Executive Branch shall construe this bill in a manner consistent with the requirements that state and federal courts rely on and defer to presidential signing statements as a source of authority."
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Doesn't this simply mean that Bush didn't understand what he signed, and mis-summarized the bill?
Don't attribute to malice, yada, yada...
So did Benjamin Franklin.
(IIRC -- was the mail of a British colonial governor -- web searches haven't helped my memory so I'm going to do something else now and let others do the research)
If it were any other president, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.
But this is a president who was either lying or willfully ignorant to get us to wage a war in which the American people lost a lot of money and a lot of lives (and many times more Iraqi civilians) with no clear benefit to our country. And one consequence of this war was that some very good friends of people in his administration made a LOT of money.
So there is no benefit of the doubt any more for this President. Let's just hope that he and his friends will be satisfied with the thievery they have already accomplished and not attempt to take even more from us.
The exact reason we are giving credibility to them is because they are credible and directly result in agency policies and procedures. In this case some spooky organization can open your mail and the president will go to court to preserve their ability to do so and that takes time. Lots of it.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm where you will find, "We believe that such statements may on appropriate occasions perform useful and legally significant functions.... directing subordinate officers within the Executive Branch how to interpret or administer the enactment...."
Is there any respect (or even understanding) of the process of law in this country anymore?
Maybe, but the wheels of justice move so slowly that the Executive office can do as they please for quite a while. Along with the last decade or so of vast expansion of Executive power it makes it all the more relevant. Historically speaking, you will note the current supreme court calendar is relatively empty as well.
Here's another one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
A "state of" emergency has ever been the excuse for taking away people's liberties. GWB thinks 9/11 gives him the right to do whatever he pleases, constitution be damned.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
in all seriousness, I don't think the president is a stupid as he claims he is. I think it's just a way for him to get support from his....unsophisticated base of good-old-boys that are glad that the "Yale ivory tower elites" aren't running things anymore.
Can't we impeach the bastard yet? All nixon did was spy on his political opponents. All Clinton did was lie about sex. This signing statement bullshit is the one of the biggest threats to the American people of the last 300 years. He's ignoring the constitution, overpowering the congress, and extending government power at the expense of civil liberties all with one giant, misguided stone.
XML causes global warming.
Someone should send a letter to Osama bin Laden with a couple of bucks in it and a PGP-encrypted message. That'll freak out the feds. :)
Method of processing duck feet
Every time '1984' gets mentioned - 1 shot. THAT Ben Franklin quote - 1 shot. Feel free to add your own, meme's don't count.
Stupid people think it's cool. Smart people thinks it's a joke; also cool.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" -- Thomas Jefferson
The right has been stacking the courts for the last 26 years (excluding a brief respite during the Clinton admin, but in that case, they simply refused to act on over 60 of Clinton's nominations).
Remember the "Unitary Executive" fights during the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings? Bush is saying with these signing statements that he is only subject to the laws he wants to be, and can run the country how he sees fit (the MBA at work here). This is the "Unitary Executive". I believe that Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would support the legality of these signing statements. Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer would not. Kennedy and Roberts? Don't know.
In short: at the present, most legal scholars believe the signing statements are not legally binding. But the right is working very hard to ensure that they will be.
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
-
The crumbling education system
-
The mortgaging of our livelihood to countries like China, Japan and Russia
-
The massive budget deficit we now face, it's said that very soon, our country will be broke!
-
The un-functional foreign policy!
-
The unemployment situation that squeezes the middle class
-
Trade pacts or deals that solely benefit "big business"
-
Massive corruption. Even congressmen convicted of corrupt tendencies are still getting their pensions on our tab! Remember Haliburton?
-
IRAQ! Need I say more, on December 31st 2006, we lost our 3,000th marine
-
Cutting down on the rhetoric. It's good we now hear nothing of the "...Stay The Course..." category
-
Addressing the "lies" we've been fed on since he came into office. Restore dignity
There is more but I need to go.Where is Gerald Ford when our nation needs him to rescue us from a cowboy?
You don't need a fancy warrant to open mail when a simple letter-opener will do.
... mail should be able to be searched with just cause.That's what search warrants are for. Or did you mean to write "just 'cause" instead ?
If warrantless searching of US mail becomes practice, then it will actually reduce security. Previously, certain grades of classified materials could be sent through the mail, with certain conditions. However, if it can be opened by any slob working for the department of homespun security, then that violates need to know principle if nothing else, and for good or bad the practice will have to stop. Re-tooling a government practice or policy is not easy, cheap, efficient, or quick.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Man, this administration sure is giving the Your Rights Online category an offline workout...
I cant belive that this President isnt impeached, when it just took so little for the last one to get impeached. It only shows that the real power is resting somewhere else....
Don't any of you people read the article. (yes this is slashdot, I know)
President Bush isn't claiming any new found Presidential power. Nor is he saying that the federal government is planning on opening a random 25% of private mail.
The entire article is extremely slanted and only down near the bottom is it revealed that Presidents have always had such power. The most telling part is when the spokesperson mention the "tick bomb" example and the very next sentence was 'Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances..."'. Using the word "however" gives the impression that President Bush is adding onto the "ticking bomb" powers with lesser demanding circumstances. Completely false.
A slanted hit piece on President Bush and the majority of the readers here and knee-jerking about how President Bush is destroying every American civil right.
You can read our mail... if we can read yours.
Deal?
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
He's going to get all the good coupons out of my Valpack!
The US postal system doesn't do unreasonable searches. Proof: a person that sends 20 lbs of cannabis across state lines has been doing it for 5 years without a single complaint. haha!
I bet this is nothing but a political straw dog:
1) About two minutes ago congress resumed with a democratic majority.
2) The democrats have vigorously opposed warrantless "wire-tapping" of telephone calls and emails seeking to intercept terrorist communications.
3) The "wire-tapping" technologies are top secret.
4) Today, democrats gain control of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Several new democrats will learn about the top secret technologies.
5) Once so educated, the democrats will privately, quietly drop their opposition to the warrantless "wire-tapping".
6) To save face, the democrats will publicly raise a furor over this specious, totally unimplementable idea of tearing open mail without warrants. They will eventually win the argument, and be able to claim that they "put the President in his place on an important issue of privacy invasion."
7) The monitoring programs will continue uninterrupted, unhindered, and finally, unthreatened by the democrats. George Bush will take a highly-public political loss and a highly-private factual win.
So that's my opinion, FWIW. Anyone who takes a dopey-looking Presidential action like this at face value is a fool. (I'll save all trolls the trouble and suggest the first reply: "Either that or I'm the fool.")
About the word "if": If bullfrogs had wings, they wouldn't bounce around on their little green butts.
A slanted hit piece on President Bush and the majority of the readers here and knee-jerking about how President Bush is destroying every American civil right.
I would have characterized it more as a circle-jerk, actually.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's still in the White House Basement.
###### lives in Mexico.
Great now all our phones are tapped.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
It seems to me that the Postal Service can do this already given probable cause. Guess I will have to keep using e-mail
There are only two steps in the gathering of ultimate knowledge. Open your eyes and, RTFM!
because it's the party of losers (this coming from a card Carrying Democrat :) ). Seriously, hear me out. All successful politicians want to be evil and screw the common man, because that's the most efficient way to be a politician. Doing so gets you profitable contacts and large campaign contributions which you use to blanket the airwaves with spin. People who don't subscribe to this kind of government get weeded out by those that do. If you're just not very good at it, you become a Democrat to avoid competing with the Republicans for campaign money. Successful politicians don't have ideals; they couldn't survive in politics against people who don't.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Call Your Senator now and demand the arrest,
trial, conviction, and sentencing of AL-QAEDA's CHIEF OF
OPERATIONS.
Thanks again for your support,
Kilgore Trout, ACTIVIST
If someone claims to have mailed a nasty toxic substance, or if there is probable cause to believe that something like that has occurred, then law enforcement/EMS better be there to take care of it. The post office doesn't have the resources to handle such tasks; let those who have experience with emergency situations handle it.
I agree that such a claim can be the potential for abuse, but that comes with just about everything.
I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
Celebrities should not comment on science
Bill Gates comments on robotics
and now:
George Bush comments on constitutional law
The scary part is that one of these is really dangerous.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
- Yet another reason to use encrypted email
- Yet another reason to impeach him
- Yet another reason to abolish presidential signing statements
- Yet another reason to 'not trust the government'
The constant barrage of unconstitutionality baffles me. This man just keeps adding and adding to the reasons why he's the worst president ever.Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
assuming bush was voted in legally and he did not cheat... save that for another time..
...and sadam gives u his too, he no longers wants them...too soon?
the world new he was dumb, a mistake, a puppet before he got into power...
he screwed up so much before he go into power, and has continue doing so.
it is every americans fault for this happening, every person who did not vote or voted for him, u r all equally to blame.
the world gives u the finger.
. . . he can rip a celluloid "W" off of his chest and throw it at his opponents?
Well, I guess we're thoroughly screwed. No way Dubya will heed his father's advice to use his powers only for good.
Who wants or needs rights? Commie terrorists that's who. If that's not you then you are doing nothing wrong and have nothing to fear. Continue to let us take away your rights until we decide you have done something wrong.
Guy's got it right...
Next time, I'll keep my pie hole shut!
Watched this last night, and the trail of breadcrumbs (that were spaced out in time, out attention intterupted by Super Bowl, reality shows and pretzel chokings thus keeping us off balance) is in this show at least, pretty clear and sickening. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and ultimately Dubya got exactly wat they wanted, piece by piece, line-of-language at a time, retailatory behavior after retailatory behavior. And all their pawns got Presidential Medals of Freedom.
All those times when you looked at the next logical headline and thought "They couldn't really have done that for the obvious cartoon evil reasons..." Apparently they did, in what is now clearly an unapologetic manner, with no more compassion than a cat for a mouse.
The guy I felt most for was Colin Powell. He should have stopped playing the good soldier to his commander and tell the plain old president to go pound sand.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Bingo...that's the issue, not the fact that signing statements don't hold water, nor that these things kind of, maybe violate the constitution. The fact that the current regime has made it crystal clear that they feel they have the right to take any action they desire, regardless of the downstream implications, the poor survey results, or the "legality" or such actions...that is scary as shit, folks. Example: the PATRIOT act, which actually has the word "terrorist" in the acronym, is regularly used to gather evidence in non-terrorism cases. They did it, nobody sued (at least, successfully), so they set a precedent. Same thing with this crap: gosh, we knew it wasn't a bomb in that box being sent to Senator Harry Reid, but because search and seizure is now a gray area, we thought we'd just see what was in that package from the Hualapai tribal council... .
The fact that Bush has issued orders of magnitude more signing statements than any other sitting president is clear evidence that such behavior sits in his overall strategy, and the signing statements are to cover his bible-thumping, two-bit warlord ass when (if) we ever buck up and decide to run him out on a rail.
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
But isn't this sort of the opposite of "your rights online"
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
I think you meant never and I also think you are forgetting the Japanese internment camps we had during World War II.
"I think you meant the opposite of what you said, and based on that interpretation, here is an example proving you 'wrong'."
Finally, if you are a law abiding American citzen or law abiding resident then you should have nothing to worry about. However if you skirt the law, are a criminal, and in this country illegally then I say tough shit to you.
"Only the guilty need fear being hit with this large stick. And for your convenience, I have defined who the guilty are - the guilty are those who have done wrong."
Bravo. The only thing you left out is the part about knowing who has done wrong by hitting them with the stick and seeing who says "Ouch". Other than that, absolutely stellar!
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
It would make sense that privacy advocates should also be advocates of the 2nd Amendment (interpreted as allowing for private gun ownership and right-to-carry) as an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive. I know that some of you will say that marching and demonstrating is one way that does not require an armed resistance. Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989).
Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
isn't this a case of activist president?
Hmmm,
Almost daily murders by police
Torture of civilians by police
Phone tapping by Feds
Water boarding by Military and Feds
Guantanamo
Lobotomies of civilians by police (since 1985)
Why NOT open the mail?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I was SURE the United States prevailed over the Soviet Union.
guess I was wrong.
Hail the Glorious Premier Bushkie!
Even though I don't like the results and I had to think long and hard about it.
Unfortunately most laws have horribly ambiguous wording so when they get challenged in the courts, judges (including SCOTUS) have been looking not just at the words of the Constitution, other laws and the specific law being challenged but also at the Congressional Record when the law was debated to see what Congress thought they were voting for.
(In other words, the courts have decided that Congressional "signing statements" change the bill!)
Well, if the meaning of the law's words is allowed to be changed by Congress' explanations of what they thought they were voting for it seems perfectly reasonable that the meaning of the law's words be allowed to be changed by the President's explanation of what he thought he was signing.
Just as the President is free to read Congress' "signing statements" (the Congressional Record) when deciding to sign the bill into law, Congress is perfectly free to read the President's signing statements and amend the signed law if they think he has misunderstood their intent.
You could argue (and I would agree) that neither Congress' nor the President's "signing statements" should ever be necessary because laws durn well ought to be written to say exactly what they mean but if you think of it as Designers/Engineers (Congress) and Managers (the President) writing a spec. for some outsourced Developer/Builder (the Courts), maybe you'll have a little sympathy for why both Congress and the President want to attach copious notes to the spec (law).
A spokesperson states that the constitution grants such rights...
i on.overview.html
Damn, I must have missed that while reading the constitution of our nation.
You can check it out here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Fucktards like you should be rounded up, sealed in a box and shot out of a cannon into the sun.
If the mail is going out of or coming into the country, you can open it without a warrant. You breach the rights of the person outside the country, basically, by claiming this action is done at the outer edge of the postal system-- i.e., when the letter becomes property of the recipient instead of the sender; or when it's still the property of the sender rather than the recipient. Of course, our constitution only gives us rights, not people in Germany or Iraq; so this is completely legal.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Actually, I believe it is now illegal to melt US-minted coins.
b an-usat_x.htm/
http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-12-14-melting-
Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
I have nothing to hide.
Not doing anything ILLEGAL is absolutely NOT the same as having nothing to hide.
Do you want the government opening the mail that contains your medical insurance claims? Do you want the government opening mail that contains confidential business documents, or trade secrets? Do you want the incumbent political officials having access to confidential campaign materials should you want to run for office?
And remember, 'the government' is ultimately a person in an office somewhere, with your mail in their personal possession. Do you trust every person the government might hire at any time in the future to not run to the photocopier with your confidential documents?
We all, at some point or another, have something to hide - and not because it might be illegal or even embarrassing, but because our confidential information, in the wrong hands, can be damaging to us.
paintball
I hate to think there are any illegal aliens getting across our borders in envelopes.
In the interest of protecting who ever has to open the letters, from paper cuts, I recommend not sealing the flap
"Please we need your help to reduce the dangers of infection from paper cuts..." This has been a PSA of the United states Post Office
If you didn't vote Libertarian don't complain about the same old regime.
Every time Bush line item vetoes a new law, take a shot. Every time Bush takes away another freedom, take a shot.
During the Cold War the US gave you and the free world more rights Temporarily so you could compare better yourself to the citizens of the soviet bloc. But when it was over (the war), the US and the free world started to remove your rights one by one (enter Bush/911).
Regards,
GWB
The constant barrage of unconstitutionality baffles me.
Not to start an argument, but if the "constant barrage of unconstitutionality" baffles you then maybe, just maybe, your interpretation of unconstitutionality is wrong?
How many of you people who still voted Republican in 2002, 2004 and 2006 are still claiming that your president is "conservative" or stands for liberty in any way but his own, and his bribers/friends?
If we used your partisan rules of governance to actually run this country in every way, not just the most profitable, you'd all be tortured in secret now that the majority of the government is controlled by the party you've fought like a criminal mob.
Instead, we're probably back on track to democracy. Have you learned anything?
--
make install -not war
And neither is this Constitutional power. Do you think Lincoln wasn't intercepting Confederate mail while suspending habeas corpus? If we got suspicious mail from Germany in WW II, do you think FDR wasn't opening it while putting Asian-Americans in concentration camps, summarily executing unlawful combatants (today they get a Caribbean vacation), forcing the press to give him positive war coverage, and wiretapping the press and his political opponents?
Sheesh, no one even glances at history anymore. They just scream "FASCISM!" at the drop of a hat.
That's an interesting line of thought and I think there's another similar possibility: He is doing the best he can to protect us and all of this is in our own best interests. I just don't think he see's any of the larger implications or future ramifications of his policies, and maybe his advisors are taking advantage of this in their recommendations.
The problem is that all these policing measures in the name of anti-terrorism won't really do much to stop terrorist attacks, while they keep eroding the freedoms that make this country great. The country in the time of the founding fathers faced far greater threats than a bunch of these fundie twits.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
So just print out a letter that is PGP encrypted. Put it in the envelope, and then the person receiving the letter can OCR it back into a computer and decrypt it.
That being said, I wonder how long it would take for the US government to start demanding people hand over their PGP keys if that happened. I know you are forced to hand over the keys in the UK, maybe if Bush does the same, we will have to have another revolution against a tyrannical King George.
What was seen almost world-wide as practically the quintessential embodiment of democracy and freedom in the 20th century is well on the road to leaving that as far behind as the last century itself.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Yes, he is.
This is not at all true. Near the bottom, the article does not "reveal" that "Presidents have always had such power". It instead quotes a White House spokesman that doesn't even claim Presidents have always had such power, but instead that the Constitution does not forbid the government to engage in such searches. While this is certainly true, it is irrelevant: statute law can restrict the authority of the executive beyond the limits the Constitution places on the government. The Constitution places an outer limit on what the law may allow, but not everything that is within the scope permitted to the government by the Constitution is legal for the President, particularly when law is passed expressly forbidding the action at issue.
So that the Constitution permits warrantless searches in certain circumstances, and that those exceptions might apply to the mails as well, has no bearing here.
The fact is this: Bush is signing a law adding to the protection of first-class mail beyond what is obligatory under the 4th Amendment while claiming the right to ignore it in every case in which the provisions of the law aren't redundant with those of the 4th Amendment, directly in opposition to his oath and duty to faithfully execute the laws.
Ah, there's a new one. I'd heard the, "evil, but short-bus stupid" argument, but never the, "altruistic, but short-bus stupid" argument.
Ordinarily I don't respond to ACs, but...
The framers created the constitution and bill of rights because they were facing the type of threats that we are currently facing: totalitarian government control. Terrorism is the worst thing our country has had to face in possibly centuries, granted, and it needs to be dealt with directly. But, there is very clear evidence that the Bush family and their buddies want to make their stamp on history as not the regime which battled terrorism abroad, but as the team who brought the term "executive power" back into the oval office. Rumsfeld and Cheney both worked for Gerald Ford, and were appalled at the amount of power taken away from the executive branch after Watergate, and they supposedly blamed Ford for that. The absolutely phenomenal amount of liberties being shed under the flag of Fighting Terrorism, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc, provide evidence to that end.
Do you feel safer since 9/11? Are you confident the Freedom Tower will stand forever because W can open your mail? Did hanging Hussein and killing 3,000 american soldiers as punishment for Hussein executing 148 Sunnis shut down the suicide-bomber factories? Don't even get me started on the irreversable damage done to the establishment clause...This is about control and power, not security.
That's why we can meet in groups and discuss politics without control. That's why we can protest in public. That's why we can carry guns. That's why we can publish information and criticisms of the government. Once you let those rights go (which W has been doing a great job on, summarily), it is really hard to go back; and if we can't discuss what our leaders are doing publicly and criticise them and protest their actions and not have to worry about if that letter to the editor of the Times was intercepted and "stored as evidence of terrorism", then we lose our quasi-democracy and become a full-fledged plutocracy/oligarchy, just like the one we went to war to split from in the 1770's.
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
... look forward to the pending constitutional crisis triggered when a Postal Inspector places an FBI agent under arrest.
Unitary Executive is a legal theory that holds that there are 3 branches of government, executive, legislative, and the courts. It doesn't question Chief Justice Marshall's assertion that the court is a co-equal branch (clearly NOT in the constitution, it was a much smaller branch, with executive and legislative being relatively equal), it doesn't even question the Warren Court's assertion that it is the most important branch (a bizarre assertion, but suggesting the the court can decide to throw out something chosen by a majority of the legislature and agreed to by the executive without narrowly defined roles makes it EXTREMELY powerful, since overriding them requires 2/3s the legislature and 3/4s the states).
Unitary suggests that ALL the powers delegated to the executive branch belong to the President. The cabinet (not in the Constitution), the long standing government agencies (not in the Constitution) are all part of the President.
It means that Congress CAN NOT delegate power to the IRS, they delegate the power to the executive. They can fund the IRS to do so, but the President holds all powers delegated to executive agencies.
It basically suggests that if Congress grants power to an executive agency to do something, they have granted it to the President, they do not get to assign powers to the civil service.
Unitary Executive suggests that the Civil Service is a PART of the Executive, and not some mythical fourth branch of government that can write administrative laws without the ability for either Congress or the President to review. The President, under Unitary Executive theory, can override ANY decision made in the executive branch. Congress can't empower random individuals. There are 3 branches of government, not 3 major ones, with minor ones everywhere.
Nice try Bush, but this will be overturned very quickly.
Dork.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If only we had some process, some system, which would allow law enforcement to establish that "just cause" existed to search mail or other private property, where a neutral magistrate could issue an order if such cause existed, or demand additional proof if it had not been established...
What to do, what to do...
>The men who wrote the Bill of Rights had absolutely no idea what kind of threats would be facing this country, and as such, their perspective is simply no longer valid.
I beg to disagree. The men responsible for the Bill of Rights, which took effect in 1791, were still around a few years later when our country was physically invaded by foreign troops. In fact, the chief author, James Madison, was President when the Brits marched in and burned the White House to the ground along with a few other important bits of Washington, DC. Since there were still plenty of Loyalist collaborators around, you could make the same arguments about opening mail, warrantless searches, etc. being in the interest of "national security." The biggest threat to our liberty then was the same as it is now, authoritarian government.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Instead of knee-jerking, perhaps you should consider what led up to this.
EMERGENCY CONDITIONS is the critical wording here.
If a poison was being spread through the mail, do you really think it has to go through an unamed judge before action is taken?
However, if a court ruled that there was not sufficient reason to open a letter, it would be an illegal search, and all consequent evidence excluded as "fruit of the poisoned vine". Bye-bye case.
OMG! Teh terrorists!
You get what you deserve you fucking coward. Face it, bad shit happens. There are really mean people out to hurt you. Guess what, somewhere else, really far away - WE ARE THE BAD PEOPLE OUT TO HURT YOU!
Except for when Americans first gained independence from England. Except when Israel became a recognized state. Except how Iraqi insurgents are currently winning a war with no purpose. It has little to do with how trained or equipped a force is. Whether you can win a fight easily is not important either. The second amendment was right then and it is still right today. It would be nice if groups of humans could be trusted with power over other humans, but reality and perception will always be otherwise. Don't underestimate the importance of having arms as a deterrent against people acting against your wishes because they know what is best for you.
Wanna Bet?
Everything is allows, the USA is at war. But in the mean time, every move from this president, is a move toward a totalitarian state, but still, some believe they live in a great democracy, I guess Prosac is good...
Alright then, since being a 9/11 survivor apparently makes you immune to the barbs of..what..non-survivors?, as another 9/11 survivor I feel authorized to tell you to: "go die, you fascist."
Perhaps this is a bit off the topic, but I haven't had a chance to ask anyone this yet. You said that "an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive". And this sounds reasonable on the surface. But if that's true, than how is that the Middle East is both a)run by truly oppressive governments and b)so heavily armed that they use fully automatic AK47's for noise-makers at weddings?
Anyhoo, to satisfy your curiosity of why Liberals are quicker to complain about censorship than gun restrictions: I suppose it's because we've seen more good come out of free speech (like rock music, movies above a G rating, realistic video games) than we've seen come out of being more heavily armed than the government. And of course seen a lot more bad things come out of censorship (all the jokes they had to throw out of Family Guy, all the nude shot of Jessica Alba that never took place) than we've seen from the government preventing a citizen from buying a gun. I'm not saying that what we've seen and haven't seen make us all *against* gun ownership (I'm not against it, guns rock!); I'm just trying to explain why we're more concerned with one over the other.
Cheers.
We live in a dictatorship. Bush can - and does - do anything he wants. His oath of office has been violated, he flouts the laws of the country, he holds prisoners without recourse to representation or even the opportunity to go in front of a judge, he tortures people, he lies to the public, starts wars of aggression, reads your mail, taps your phone...
The saddest thing is that no one is going to do anything about it. So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Assholes like the GGP poster don't deserve courtesy or respect, regardless of their experiences.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
7.00pm
NYU School of Law
Lipton Hall (located in D'Agostino Hall)
110 West 3rd Street
In 2001, President Bush issued a secret executive order authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance of people in the United States. In May 2006, the nation learned that the National Security Agency has been building a massive database of Americans' phone records.
A federal judge has already ruled the warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional. The Bush Administration claims that it has the inherent authority to continue it. Join the New York Civil Liberties Union and other co-sponsoring organizations for a free town hall meeting to discuss warrantless wiretapping and the threat it poses to civil liberties. Learn how you can take action to stop unconstitutional NSA spying and protect your rights to privacy and freedom of speech.
http://www.nyclu.org/nsa_spying_campaign.html
-richie
Before you mark me as a troll, think about the following. A postcard and a letter in a closed envelope. The first can be read by everybody. The second can't.
The first you can compare to plain text. The second by using gpg encryption.
If you send a postcard to somebody, you will not seriously be upset if anybody reads it, I asume. Want things to be kept a secret or at least not known to everybody? Seal the envelope/Use gpg.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Bush said of Pelosi as Speaker, before the elections, "That's not going to happen."
I assume that the searching is mostly for packages, and not plain letter mail. Most people use the Internet these days for transfer of documents, so physical goods are the only thing worth searching for.
So does this mean it is time to start encrypting our snail mail?
wars of aggression
You read too many bumper stickers. I there has yet to be a war of pacifism. Your rhetoric is cheap, but telling.
So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
President Madison's use of economic pressure to force England to repeal its blockade almost succeeded. The revival of the Non-Intercourse Act against Britain, prohibiting all trade with England and its colonies, coincided with a poor grain harvest in England and with a growing need of American provisions to supply the British troops fighting the French in Spain. As a result, on June 16, 1812, the British Foreign Minister announced that the blockade would be relaxed on American shipping. Had there been an Atlantic cable, war might have been averted. President Madison had sent a message to Congress on June 1 listing all the complaints against England and asking for a declaration of war.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
But then Darth Cheney will be the emperor.
Shrub is a cowpoke at best.
You see, the easiest way to gain control of a decadent empire is to first create an enemy or wait for an enemy attack to you. After this occurs, its easy to instill fear into your nation. You don't need fear of the government (which is bad to instill since it leads to revolution), nor do you need fear of a deity (which is bad to instill since it either leads to demoting science or deluding God, depending on your outlook). You have fear of an enemy of the state. If the populace isn't fearful enough, tell the populace that members of this enemy faction may exist within the nation (Revolutionary War and the British supporters, Civil War and the separatists, WWII and Japan, Cold War and the communists) and will attack us FROM within. People begin to fear one another and see the government as a trustworthy protector.
Once this state is formed, the government can easily control its populace and remove more and more freedoms from the populace that ensure its own survivability (since the ultimate fate of all governments and empires everywhere now and forever is to be destabilized from within or from an enemy force).
On another note: I do believe there is a group out there who wants to kill us and did attack us. I believe the barbarians did attack and sac Rome, and I believe the mongols did in fact lead China into its seclusive era from its expansive era (err not expansive so much as...outgoing? You know, treasure ships and silk road and all that).
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
if the "constant barrage of unconstitutionality" baffles you then maybe, just maybe, your interpretation of unconstitutionality is wrong?
I think you were just playing a little devils advocate to get a rise, but the GP poster is certainly not alone in his feeling that many things that Bush has done in office, or powers he claims are inherent in the presidency, are at best dubious and very likely unconstitutional. As evidenced by many of the posters here, the American Bar Association (who have condemned his signing statements as being wholly unconstitutional and against the rule of law), and many others. Plus just a read of the constitution fails to turn up any of the powers Bush has claimed as being inherent to the presidency, including the theory of the unitary executive. In fact that concept goes completely against the well-documented historic reasons for forming our union in the first place (power of the king being too great). Right now most of what he has done that is considered by many to be unconstitutional has gone unchecked because of sycophants and cronies in high level positions and party control of congress. Once the courts start getting involved we'll probably see a lot of changes IMHO.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
As with anything in life, people will grab as much power as you allow them.
If this is explicitly denied by, say, the constitution but nobody does anything about it, why should he stop?
This is where the "Ever Vigilant" stuff comes in. If we are not marching on Washington--if we are not using every peaceful measure available to us, and then every POSSIBLE measure available to us to stop this destruction of our country, it's really our fault--not any individuals (not GWBs in other words).
As long as they manage to keep us comfortable enough to quell any disquiet while they dismantle our civil protections, they will succeed because. It's happened many times before, and there is no reason to assume that something about our government is magically immune to this type of internal overthrow.
I honestly feel we have a one party system too--Corporate money controls Democrats as well as Republicans, so we really are more of a Fascist state ruled by corporate interests than a Democracy already.
Many of our founding fathers believed in the concept of "Fight for it or lose it". I don't see anyone fighting--at least not in any way that is effective.
I'm no exception--but I'm up for suggestions.
Gentlemen don't fly airliners full of civilians into skyscrapers, behead infidels and post the video on the internet, and make their women cover their bodies from head to toe.
I love the tags on this one. This thread is just like Bush though, does one thing - says another.
Google helpfully turned up that exact phrase on this site, from the "Temple of the Screaming Electron":
n ts/univrite.html
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/political_docume
The "Universal Bill of Rights", as "promulgated under the authority of the Universal Supreme Law; the Law of God; the Law of Nature; the Law of the Constitution; and the Law of Common Sense". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Batman.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Sadly, neither party is that great when it comes to respecting the Bill of Rights. Here's my very quick take on their stances. Combined, there wouldn't be much left of the Bill of Rights. Laws and bills are not cited, but numerous examples abound in the last decade.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Want to weaken some religious freedoms (abolishment of tax-free status). Anti-free speech during elections.
Repubs - Recently want to intimidate journalists in re Iraq War. Anti-free speech during elections.
I'm still waiting for someone to suggest, "Hey, think how much we can reduce crime if just make it illegal for people to assemble without a license! No more conspiracies!"
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Doing everything in their power to destroy this.
Repubs - Support in theory, but rarely in practice.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Not much action on this front.
Repubs - Not much action on this front.
Amendment IV
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.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Not as active against these as the Repubs, but not fighting the weakening of the rights much either.
Repubs - Warrantless wiretapping, mail reading, internet monitoring, support of broader police powers
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Supportive of recent Supreme Ct decision that private property can be taken for public use if it's a "better" public use.
Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests, where terrorism is undefined.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Maybe not instigators, but voted for most of the current administration's bills affecting the same.
Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests again. Speedy? 3 years is speedy, right? Also not permitting habeus corpus for such defendants, nor counsel.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tri
This is not the totalitarian act so many of you are making it out to be. It is certainly not the deathknell of Western civilization. Here is what he said: "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent
The post office has a first class letter than is ticking. Bush is claiming that the letter can be opened or x-rayed in that situation. And for that situation, I agree with him. Let's get a little fuzzier. What if there is information that a particular piece of mail contains insructions to a terrorist cell to trigger an attack? If that information was reliable, I would also agree that it's an exigent circumstance. On the other hand, opening a letter written by a known mobster does not count. It's not an exigent circumstance. In that situation a warrant needs to be issued.
While I do wish Bush had stated a narrower limit to executive power than "exigent circumstances", it's still sufficiently narrow that we should be able to discuss this calmy and rationally, without the extreme excoriation that so many in the press are displaying.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20 061220-6.html
"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."
This is in and of itself grounds for removal from office. Signing statements *must* stop, and any president which issues them must be removed from office. However, I seriously doubt that congress will suddenly 'grow a pair' and ditch this tinpot dictator wannbe. And unfortunately in the supremes we have Alito who is a defender of executive privilege and the 'unitary executive'.
The only other solution, also highly unlikely, is a contituional amendment eliminating the executive branch and the office of the president. The office of the president has proven to be too dangerous, going back at least to Andrew Jackson. We are ending up creating the royalty class all over again.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad. -- James Madison
The distinction you are avoiding is between a war where someone like Bush Jr simply begins attacking a non-aggressive opponent for reasons economic (or imaginary), and a war where an attack is made to defend against such unreasonable actions (eg, Kuwait, WWII.) Aggression on the one hand, defense on the other. Got it now?
The "Gestapo", as you call our authorities, has arrested many, held them without recourse to representation or even a hearing before a court, tortured them. It has also tapped other's phones, opened their mail, put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.
If you believe these crimes must be committed against me before I can legitimately object to them or characterize them as representing a negative trend, then I firmly disagree.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Does the guy have to lie about a blowjob to get impeached?
So I can understand the President's position. If intelligence thinks that reading a letter will stop a terrorist attack, then he should be allowed to authorize it without fear of impeachment. However, I agree with you that any abuse of this, such as reading Hillary Clinton's mail or even using this for something non-terror related (drug war or whatever), should be punished to the fullest extent!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong."
Have the department of homeland security been by to arrest ANYONE yet? Yes? Then your logic is obviously dead wrong.
Believe it or not, everyone who posts on slashdot does not have to be posting from a prison cell before there is a problem. The 'gestapo been buy to arrest you yet' measure is also WAY the hell beyond where I draw the line. The right of the lowest citizen to privacy when he phone sexes his wife or even talks to her in a mushy tone he would never let outsiders hear while she travels abroad on work trumps the latest installment of Christians versus Muslims the crusades have returned.
The bill of rights, the right to privacy, the limitations of government powers, the Constitution requirement for warrants in searches (which would include searching my communications), and the right to stockpile and bear arms should the law be twisted to allow the creation of a mad religious regime to come into power are what this country is about. Without those things we would be better off reverting to English subjects than subjecting ourselves to own corrupt government and hypocrisy.
These guys are lawyers and bloggers. I think their analysis carries significant weight.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016398.php
"...I think the paper has the story exactly backward. Under pre-existing law, a search warrant was normally required to open first class mail (but not other forms of mail). However, many exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant have been recognized. The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant in all cases; it requires that all searches be "reasonable."
One broad category of exception to the requirement of a warrant is "exigent circumstances." Generally speaking, if there are exigent circumstances (e.g., a danger that evidence is about to be destroyed), a warrant is not required. Thus, to construe the act as permitting warrantless searches in cases of exigent circumstances such as the possible presence of hazardous materials, means that in this regard, the act did not make any change in pre-existing law.
Likewise with the President's second qualification. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, warrantless physical searches are authorized in some circumstances. Thus, the President's signing statement means that he does not construe the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act as changing these provisions of FISA.
So what President Bush is saying is that he understands that law enforcement authorities have exactly the same power to open first class mail that the had prior to the enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, at least with respect to exigent circumstances and FISA-authorized searches."
Is it just me or do others feel that it is high time to start hearings to determine if George W. Bush has broken United State laws?
It seems to me that the buck stops anywhere but on the Emperor's... I mean President's desk.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Let's see. The government can legally read our mail, our email, tap our phone conversations, and in some cases enter our homes without a warrant, and without notifying us that they've done so. Interesting.
So, as long as you're not doing anything "wrong", and you haven't attracted the attention of a government peon (by dating his ex-wife, for instance) you should be fine. But, if you start doing something "wrong" that attracts the government's attention (like organizing a protest march, or speaking out against the government, or what have you) you'd better have all of your ducks in a row.
That means you'd better make sure everything -- EVERYTHING -- you do is 100% legal and on the up-and-up, and that you're dealing only with people who can say the same. No affairs or deviant sexual behavior; no speeding or running red lights; no questionable web sites or DVDs; no books that you bought in college because you were curious (like the anarchist's cookbook). Anything that you could be prosecuted for, or even just publicly embarrased over, can be legally discovered by the government and used to suppress your activities, should they be judged to be against the government's (not necessarily the people's) interests.
Eh, what could go wrong?
. . .the awhile ago, but he didn't have a week whacker. . .
And I don't have an editor, but I do have the flu, so at least my spelling and grammar have that going for them.
KFG
They do show us his interpretation, which is a good indicator of how he intends to act. If he acts contrary to existing laws in a classified program, what are you going to do about it? It would never even come to court unless some "traitor" happened to leak it to the press.
Not to start an argument, but if the "constant barrage of unconstitutionality" baffles you then maybe, just maybe, your interpretation of unconstitutionality is wrong?
I don't know, given the reactions of the Republicans who naturally trotted out the "changing presidents during a war is a sign of weakness!" despite the fact that we've done it many times now, I'd say that they certainly believe an impeachment could succeed.
The much deeper question is whether violating the Constitution or his oath of office is actually an impeachable offense. With his signing statement in direct opposition to the law he signed and swore to execute faithfully, he has apparently done both.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I think that people have too negative a view of signing statements. They establish intent for the impeachment trial.
There are two circumstances he claims that Federal law enforcement can open the mail:
(1) Exigent circumstances - ie, where there is an immediate risk of serious harm. See the basic Wikipedia review of the concept here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
This is a well established exception to the warrant requirement in a broad range of contexts. That includes searches not just of a letter or USPS package but even things like your house.
(2) Foreign mail. Once again, it is well accepted that letters and other packages may be read without a warrant as part of a foreign intelligence operation. For a well publicized (but conveniently forgotten example), do a search for information on the Feds reading all telegrams and other wire traffic sent abroad from the West Coast during WW2.
But hey, don't let reality intrude on a good Bush bashing.
US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has already made it clear that the government can do whatever it wants with your mail, without a court order. In a Senate hearing on warrantless domestic spying last February, Gonzales refused to answer that same direct question from a United States Senator:
6 /presidential_2-6.html
-------
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Did it authorize the opening of first class mail of U.S. Citizens? Just -- that you can answer yes or no.
ALBERTO GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation about what the --
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Did it authorize it?
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Let him finish.
ALBERTO GONZALES: There is all kinds of wild speculation out there about what the president has authorized and what we're actually doing. And I'm not going to get into a discussion, Senator, about hypotheticals.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Mr. Attorney General, you're not answering my question. I'm not asking you what the president authorized. Does this law --you're the chief law enforcement officer of the country. Does this law authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens-- yes or no-- under your interpretation?
ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, I think -- I think that, again, that is not what is going on here. We're only focused on communications -- international communications where one part of the communication is al-Qaida. That's what this program is all about.
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: You haven't answered my question.
From http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june0
---------
And, with a very Bushy smirk, for those of us watching on TV, Gonzales never did answer Leahy's simple, basic question "Can the government open the first class mail of U.S. citizens without a warrant?" Under George Bush, who clearly believes himself and his minions to be above the law, the answer is "Of course it can."
You seem to be asserting that only people who were physical witnesses to 9/11 really have a right to an opinion on the war on terror.
Let's see, in the 2004 election, NYC residents voted for Kerry over Bush in a 3:1 ratio.
In the 2006 senate race, Hilary Clinton beat her Republican opponent by a 2:1 ratio.
Clearly, your neighbors there, in the only place allowed to have an opinion, either a) are not concerned about terrorism or b) think Bush can NOT do a better job than the Democrats.
Maybe you should take your out of step opinions and move to Fart County, and swill some espresso. Cuz the people who you imply have an exclusive right to comment completely disagree with you.
put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.
I have personally been affected by the no-fly list even though I am not a target of the government campaign of "better security".
Every time I go to the airport to travel I expect to wait an extra while during the time they freak out over my name (which is very common actually) and then realize I'm not in my 40's and my middle name isn't the same as the other person (just the same initial). Then they apologize for the delay and I go on my way.
The first time was cute, but it happens every single time I go to the airport. I don't bother trying to use the automated baggage drop off teller because it won't let me without over ride from them so I always go to the counter first.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence"
I suppose it's wise if you're somebody who has done, or is planning to do, something malicious. Just keep repeating that cliche until enough people refuse to believe anything is done maliciously, and so there'll probably never be any investigations, as those who suspect anything will be branded as unpatriotic and paranoid conspiracy theory nutjobs. Awesome. Like it.
> However, I agree with you that any abuse of this, such as reading Hillary Clinton's mail or even using this for something non-terror related (drug war or whatever), should be punished to the fullest extent!
Of course since he never gets a warrant for any of this, he leaves no trail. See how convenient that is?
He sees everything, knows the short and long term ramifications, and is making the "best bad" decision he can. To save as many as he can, because, in the end, he knows, as we all do in the back of our heads, he can't save us all.
I'm sorry, I don't like President Bush's policies either, but I don't think the man is evil. And I don't think he is stupid.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
The Bush Administration has to do this in order to obtain politically sensitive mail being sent by various Republican campaigns. They will do anything that gives them the political upper hand.
It was similar deal such as this that allowed Homeland Security Personnel to obtain Guiliani's campaign "plans" during airport screening so that they could be leaked to the McCain campaign as a quid pro quo for his support for increases in troops in Baghdad.
So what else is new with this administration?
Two very scary things could happen: those banks could decide to dump their dollars/bonds on the market, which would completely fuck the US economy; alternatively, they can just stop buying dollar debt. That latter possibility would cause the value of the dollar on the world market to seriously drop, and that would create huge inflation here in the US. We'd also take a huge hit on trade deficits (which we can't afford to do) and get to watch foreign nationals/countries buy up lots of US assets because their euros or yen or yuan or whatever are worth many times what they used to be when they buy American.
We sell most of our debt to foreign banks because they'll accept lower interest rates than private investors. If those banks demand higher interest rates, we're back to massive inflation.
So even though deficit spending itself may not be evil, when you couple it with the amount of debt we already have and the rather large trade deficit we've got, it becomes a matter of national security.
after all, you can't make toast in a blender.
Subject: TOP SECRET
Dear Al-Haq-Bin-Ul-Din-Bun,
Tomorrow at 8 am I will be heading towards east of Kabul on my favorite camel Bushy. I urgently need $500 for camel food and water. Please wire the money through Western Union.
Yours sincerely,
Osama
...Originalism. There are a couple of wildly differing ideas there, but I believe the "Original Intent" theory is what you're going for.
Subject: TOP SECRET
Dear Al-Haq-Bin-Ul-Din-Bun,
Tomorrow at 8 am I will be heading towards east of Kabul on my favorite camel Bushy. I urgently need $500 for camel food and water. Please wire the money through Western Union.
Yours sincerely,
Usama (you know who it is..dont u)
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
"Scientific evidence shows that neither liberals nor conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned."
Should read:
Scientific evidence shows that BOTH liberals AND conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned.
can i then go around legally opening my neighbors mail?
/. account
because i suspect them of having middle eastern descent?
no seriously can i?
would it fall under the old citizens arrestness??
not that i would
i'm too lazy even to sign up for a
"I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States"
I would say he has given this a good try. The office is nearly dead till '08.
"...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"
Yup, one by one.
Lame. Duck.
KH
You dont have the 4th anymore.
..also noticed that all the anti bush comments get +4 or +5 ....shows where the /. community is..
Gotta wake up people. Our constution is basicaly shreadded, Federal goverment now does what it wants without concern for the people. Democrats in the recent 100 hours of congress in an attempt to push bills through without the pesky public reviewing them. This show they can be a cavileer with our liberity as Republicans.
Our Goverment clearly no longer respects the people, they need to understand there power comes from us. If you love liberity please start supporting groups like DownsizeDC.org
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."
George w Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Actually, he was just disclosing his sexual proclivities:
"If this were a Dick-Tater Ship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the Dick-Tater."
--George W Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Please stop stalking me, bro.
What exactly would Bush have to do to lose your support?
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
I was responding to the GP:
We live in a dictatorship. Bush can - and does - do anything he wants. His oath of office has been violated, he flouts the laws of the country, he holds prisoners without recourse to representation or even the opportunity to go in front of a judge, he tortures people, he lies to the public, starts wars of aggression, reads your mail, taps your phone...
The saddest thing is that no one is going to do anything about it. So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates. The topper, IMHO is that the Republicans didn't win the last set of elections. If they were half as corrupt as you and others claim, we either would not have had the elections, they would've only had Republican candidates, or it would have been a landslide to the right. None of which happened.
As to this topic, it's not like the NSA is going to be steaming open all of your letters. This is intended for situations like the anthrax scare a while back. Do you really expect the postmaster to wait for a warrant when a bomb-sniffing dog signals something? Are they just supposed to stand around and wait if NBC (Nuclear, Chemical, Biological) detection equipment goes off? This is the type of emergency the Prez was referring to when he "in the case of emergency". I'm sure he doesn't want to be impeached for authorizing the opening of a letter that's leaking white powder and he's covering his ass.
That's how I see it anyway.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Oath of Office
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
--------
"Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category"
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
..that the President RTFA. :p
Every US citizen should regularly read quotes from The Supremes:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice 1928 Source:dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
"Men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law."
Justice Robert H. Jackson Source:Sam Ervin, The Whole Truth
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
Justice David Davis (1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877 Source: Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) DAVIS, J., Opinion of the Court http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/David.Davis.Quote.5879
Find them. Read them. Absorb them.
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates."
Except that it has been proven that counts have been drastically wrong in a large number of districts and it has been shown that the opportunity and technical feasibility existed to rig the elections in those districts. There is a mountain of evidence to support a claim of Republican electronic vote tampering in the last presidential election. You make it sound like things went smoothly. That is ignoring the dubious circumstances of the first Bush election. With everything that went on there, I wouldn't have been comfortable with any result. You can shake a pinball machine to gain an unfair advantage, but if you shake too much the machine will register a tilt. Sometimes you lose the ball or miss the shot despite shaking the machine. It is likely that someone was shaking the machine during the elections, but the democrat vote was such a landslide that it overcame the advantage.
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing!"
I just filled out a petition to initiate the impeachment process against Bush for the undisputed violation of at least 4 US Codes of Law, the Geneva convention, and the Constitution. I showed this to 10 other people. All of them agreed that Bush should be impeached. They were all afraid to put their names on the paperwork. This wasn't some underground anti-government group or a like-minded club. These are separate individuals. They were literally afraid that they would be persecuted like others have.
If you say the wrong keywords on your phone conversation it will be wiretapped without judicial oversight and anti-American (read anti-bush) sentiments CAN get you investigated. Bush has empowered himself to have you arrested without being charged and detained indefinitely without trial. Who knows how many times he has used this? By definition nobody is informed, if someone is arrested this way they simply disappear. After being detained without charge or trial, Bush has empowered himself to literally torture you.
It sounds crazy. Like something out of a sci-fi novel or something but its not. All of this fact and is not even debated. Bush actually has the nerve to admit all of this publicly. He claims he has the right to do all this because congress said he could go in Iraq. Congress does not have the authority to allow Bush to conduct searches of mail and communications without a warrant, that is Constitutional Law and would require an amendment.
Hey maybe you support prayer in school. Maybe you don't want to see tax hikes or want smaller government. Strong support of the right to bear arms? Perhaps you feel that abortion is murder. That's great. Some of those things I agree with, some I don't. Others I might agree with the principle but believe in a different solution. But don't back this bloodthirsty madman who wants to set himself as a dictator just because he has an (R) by his name on the television screen. Unless you actually want to see things move to the point where even a slashdot post can get you arrested people like Bush need to be put down hard. The moment you have LESS rights there is a problem, as time goes on you should have MORE rights, not less. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the people who died and lost loved ones there. My family before me fought in Vietnam, WWII, the civil war, and the revolution. MY forefathers spilled blood and puss in the mud so that I would have the freedoms I enjoy. I am not willing to give up any of those freedoms because I am afraid of some terrorist and need GWB to protect me. Our forefathers were at war with over 60% of the population loyal to the other side. Instead o
I call bullshit. That's exactly what the FISA special courts are for.
This idea that "we can't tell the courts because that would compromise our operations" is no more than "we don't want anyone to be supervising us".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
What you spell "Nucular" the president actually spells "newkiller" as in "we don't want Iran to get newkiller weapons" and "We need newkiller weapons to be more useful." This is so that we avoid the fears of nuclear disasters while emphasizing that these are new killer weapons...
IANAL, but I dont think it is strictly correct to say that signing statements are not considered law. The question usually surrounds the intent of congress and whether what the President has said is within his authority (i.e. Jackson's test).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
"Slashdot is always overrun by them fuckin' librals!"
This list is just getting hammered by the right wing today.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
If we were to outlaw signing statements, then Bush's actions would be exactly the same, only he wouldn't tell us about them first. That would be even worse than what we have now. The President is already legally obligated to obey the law, like everybody else (obviously); it's just that, politically, we (American voters, and Congress) let him do whatever he wants without regard for the law. Think about it, what is "law" anyway? In effect, "law" is what we all agree to enforce. Is a "law" that we let people break all the time a "law"? Signing statement most definitely are NOT the law, and if anyone cared enough to call out the President for breaking the law (a few have tried), then that whole "effect" and "enforce" thing would change, so the "law" would change.
So do we get to read Bush's mail? It seems only fair. Anyone here work for the post office?
"The men who wrote the Bill of Rights had absolutely no idea what kind of threats would be facing this country, and as such, their perspective is simply no longer valid."
Unless you're 3/4 of the state legislatures, that's not your call to make.
Of course, if you really want to stick by your convictions that nobody outside of Manhattan has a stake in this, go bother Albany instead and leave DC for the rest of us.
he used to play with my nutmix while i was sleeping.
To be totally fair though you did invade a foreign land first in that war. Washington was also burned as retaliation for the burning and pillaging of Newark, Upper Canada (now Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario).
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
"... they feel they have the right to take any action they desire..."
Thank you for saying that, Jeremy, and for your entire comment. (I don't want to address you by your Slashdot user name.)
I get scared when I look at the discussions on Slashdot and Digg.com about politics. I see that VERY FEW people understand the seriousness of the corruption in the U.S. government now. I wanted to do something more than just vote, so I made a summary of the corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy.
Also, the law is about building up a body of examples (aka "precedent"). If enough paper accrues, then it influences future law.
Attorney General Gonzalez has several times expressed that the President is "also a Constitutional Officer" who is responsible for "making (yes he said "making")" the law.
It is an all-out full-court press to give the "unitary executive" (google it) far greater powers.
In the future, it will be seen as an attempted coup detat (or a successful one, depending on how far Bush is prepared to go).
You are welcome on my lawn.
That entirely depends on the source of the funds you are borrowing. If the funds are from savings, ie foregone cosumption for the purposes of building up your capital structure then there is no problem. If the source of funds is printing of fiat money then you are storing up a big problem, from which there are two ways out. 1 A recession in which all the bad investments are unwound (they seemed sound at the time because the interest rate was pushed lower by the printing of money) or 2. Run away inflation.
Exactly. Quality post, bro...
If the Gestapo came around you wouldn't be posting. Like Thomas Paine sez, "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Too bad the buffooon (above) hates our founders and can't see the simplest of analogies.
Sadly, I'm about 2000 miles away, otherwise I'd show you what a 6'6" pissed off Canadian looks like in the flesh quite happily.
By the way, love the nick, but mine is bigger.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Bush is very very bad. Suspension of Habeus Corpus. Enemy Combatants. Violation of the Geneva Conventions. Torturing Prisoners. Spying on US Citizens. Violation of the 4th Ammendment. Spending money we don't have, and bankrupting the country. Gross violations of the Constitution. The Patriot Act. But he isn't the worst president in US history.
Lincoln is. He did all of the above, as well as introduce unconstitutional paper money (the constitution requires that money be only gold and silver), introducing an unconstitutional income tax, imprisoning supreme court justices who disagreed with him, turning the federal government into a leviathan no longer constrained by the Constitution---no longer limited in its powers--destroying federalism. Lincoln did this while the US was still a free country (as long as you weren't black). The US is no longer a free country. (You aren't free if you don't get to keep the fruits of your own labor. If you are taxed at 50% of your income, or more, then you are at least 50% a slave. If you pay property taxes on your house, you don't own it, you merely rent it from the government.) Lincoln turned the country into a police state. Lincoln shredded the Constitution. Lincoln destroyed the government which the founding fathers set up, in order to "save the union". Lincoln destroyed the union. It hasn't been the same country since. The truly amazing thing about Lincoln is not that he was assassinated, but how long it took for it to happen.
A wry comment on the truth of the GP's observation, and it gets modded flamebait. Pearls before swine, I tell you.
You darned blue-seeing terrorists.
98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smoke, and have sex. Put this in your sig if you like bagels.
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller I think the point is that you don't have to know someone who's been disappeared by the government. You don't have to know someone who's had their rights trampled by one of the innumerable "well intentioned" acts passed by a puppet congress to know that what's going on around us is simply wrong.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Haven't confirmed it though.