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.
><));>
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.
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?!?
I can't imagine what they'd do about it. They can complain, but the separation of powers means that the executive branch has essentially infinite power to execute the laws according to its own interpretation. Ultimately, the Supreme Court itself can issue its rulings but depends on the good will of the executive branch to actually do it.
Congress' main check on that power is the ability to impeach. If the President violates the laws or court decisions, then it's a "high crime and misdemeanor", and they can remove him. That's the nuclear option, but the Constitution forbids any other control. It's a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction.
In practice the President has always had to execute the laws more or less in line with what Congress said when they passed them, precisely because the nuclear option is sitting there. But Bush is discovering that really he can do whatever he wants, no matter what the law actually says. He likes to think he's doing it to preserve the security of the country, but I've got a terrible feeling he's destroying that village in order to save it.
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 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".
Here, let me fix it for real:
13. The right of the people to be secure in their papers and possessions against searches and seizures shall not be violated except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization.
No emphasis or "..." was needed. It's been fine for 2 centuries.
The important part the Mr. Bush is overlooking is "except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization".
The current administration has removed or ignored almost every check and balance put in place by the founding fathers.
That's all fine and dandy, until the other team takes office and picks up where Bush and Co. left off.
The checks and balances are their for everyone's protection. Or at least they were.
Worst. President. Ever.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
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.
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
"So, wasn't the new congress going to start trying to do something about these signing statements?"
Primarily because the new Congress just got started, well, this morning (or was that yesterday? I get so confused these days...). The Dems also will not/do not have a concrete overriding 2/3rds majority, so they won't be effective (because Bush will exercise veto power whenever he damn well pleases).
Because Congress has no incentive to. Most people like to believe other people are bad (cynical view a la misery loves company) or likes to think that way to make themselves feel superior. They believe these protections do not apply to them. Or have a cause they believe in that is served however slightly by such actions (victim's rights and the like).
It seems many folks believe in causes, not principles, and it's been going on for some time (not a recent generation thing; the slip has been going on for awhile). The present line of thinking is get the bad guy at any cost, forgetting that those hunting often end up being the bad guys in the end.
If something favors them, people like it these days, even if it is blatently unfair (many examples, my present favorite one is senior citizens and property taxes in certain states). To that end, they vote for whoever kisses their ass and will help them econmically, and politicians know it and cater to those groups, thus majority only decisions are made even if it is detrimental to the whole.
Most people that have problems with the government are or have been jailed. Many do not have the right to vote.
We have a two-party system. See game theory (i.e. potentially why McCain lost in 2000 (or rather, never made it to the final two), see Lieberman in the most recent race).
Many people like membership. They like to call themselves Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Republican, and all that. This ends up being a "my frat/sorority is better than your frat/sorority" crapfest, where if your party wins, it's a win, instead of the principles you back.
I hate Dean. I hate war. But the war in Iraq? Good start, bad mismanagement, it's a shithole, get out. For the amount of money we expended, we could have had health insurance for everyone in the US or solved our energy issues. Such examples are not exclusive to the federal level; in PA, something like $400 million is going to the "police" instead of economic revitalization--even though the latter reduces crime far more effectively, people still believe the reduction in violent crime occurs primarily due to a police force instead of people having better opportunities to live their lives.
etc. etc.
btw, I'm a Democrat, Republican, moderate Republican, conservative Republican, to 'hell with it you guys are all @#!% nuts leave me the hell alone' who has turned into a massive cynic, watching "authority" figures abuse the simplest things (like traffic and speeding violations, lying in court, no record magisterial systems, to DAs who should be up for ethics violations to doctors who shouldn't be doctors because they'd rather be paid then help more people) to major things (see somewhat recent Slate article on the 10 stupid ass things going on, cops shooting people in the back, not talking down hostage takers and blowing in doors to backing their frat I mean fellow officers, to corrupt pharmaceutical companies making billions while passive genocide occurs (HIV in Africa)) so to heck with it I ain't surprised everyone else higher up has turned into a "victim," to the point that people who really might need help are outshouted by those simply clamoring for more.
And yeah, I'm thinking about starting a bitchy website about all of this. As if that'll help.
Do YOU get it yet?
On the other hand one might just shrug and say that governments don't need signing statements to be evil, so why does it matter.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Congress' main check on that power is the ability to impeach. If the President violates the laws or court decisions, then it's a "high crime and misdemeanor", and they can remove him. That's the nuclear option, but the Constitution forbids any other control. It's a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction.
No, the Constitution provides one other control: Congress controls the money. If Congress decides to de-fund half the executive branch, then half the executive branch is fired.
The only executive branch offices mandated by the Constitution are that of President and Vice-President. Congress can do away with any other office, position, or agency any time they see fit. (except there's a general requirement to have a Navy, IIRC) Call it the "slash and burn" option.
Unfortunately, Congress would have to have a backbone to use that power. They don't, so they won't.
Where is Gerald Ford when our nation needs him to rescue us from a cowboy?
No problem then: Bush has no intention of having his people going through the hassle of getting a warrant before opening your mail...
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
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.
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.
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
It's not so much legality as it is accountability. Try this scenario on for size: The FBI, CIA, or NSA (or some sect of one) begin opening up tons of United States Citizen mail without warrants. The reason doesn't matter at all, but just imagine they started opening up federal mail without warrants. If the American public finds out, there would be an outrage, much like the one about warrant less wiretapping and warrant less phone record data. There would be debates about what is legal and what isn't. But here's the catch. No matter which way the debate goes, no one who committed the crime will be held accountable. If the debate agrees with the signing statement, then the law is altered and everyone is cleared. But the scary part is, if the debate disagrees with the signing statement and the actions by the agency is agreed to be illegal the offenders will still get a pass because of the signing statement. It's not quite an executive-order, but it's pretty much an executive-commit-this-crime-for-free statement.
President Bush isn't trying to change the law. He's doing something much much worse. He's creating a process where by it can be ignored openly without accountability. If there is no accountability for violating the law, it will be violated.
No matter what happens in the end, a government agency who opens up mail from now on can refer back to the signing statement and will not be prosecuted. Their careers probably won't even be jepordized in the slightest.
"I sincerely wish we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is
trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied." -- Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801.
Everyone keeps talking about Bush like he is some evil, snickering sociopath, sitting in his dark cave-like office, cackling at his new diabolical plan to become ruler of the world. However, I see it very differently: Has anyone even considered that he is probably just genuinely terrified of the perceived terrorist threats, and that is why he is acting in a panicky, reactive manner and making stupid, irresponsible policies and decisions? I find that much more likely.
I personally very much disagree with a lot of his actions, and cannot wait for his term to come to an end, but I see him much more as a scared kid trying to fend off an attack that he can't see but knows is coming rather than a conniving, malicious dictator-wannabe.
Student Manager - Take control of your education!
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
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
Does the sender not enjoy constitutional protection? (Assuming source is from US land)
From TFS: The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces (emphasis mine ~R) protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. You have a 3 digit UID, and you still don't read even the summary?
He's not changing those rules, the People of the United States (via their elected representatives) passed a law explicitly stating that he cannot do what his signing statement says he intends to do.
He is directly stating that he will ignore those safeguards, on top of a law passed to restate the will of the people that he follow them. What is reasonable about a President saying directly that he intends not to follow a law the people thought it important enough to re-issue? What safeguards do you expect will be followed by a man who says he will not follow them?
Until he does this, this is irrelevant. That he could declare Martial Law does not grant him those powers before he does so. If/When he does, then this will likely trigger a very serious response from the previously apathetic citizens; this response is the risk and price of taking those powers. He doesn't gain the powers unless that risk is taken and that price paid.
~Rebecca
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.
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
>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.
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.
"but at the same time complain about the 2nd Amendment and the general pro-gun attitudes of Republicans."
We're not anti-gun, we're just anti- the pro-gun people such as yourselves who constantly pop up with off-topic comments like these, evangelizing about what we "really should" care about. Really, unless your plans involve yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" while jumping off a balcony, how exactly would easy access to firearms prevent the Bush Administration from reading your mail?
"an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive."
If a republic becomes "truly oppressive," it's already too late; there's little that easy access to firearms could accomplish other than make things bloodier. Rifles are meant to defend civilization, not to act as some sort of back-up plan if civilization fails.
"Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989)."
They're not limited to rifles. The example you cite famously involved tanks. They also have airplanes with bombs, artillery, and any number of mean and nasty ways to kill you without being anywhere near you. And a truly oppressive government, the bogey man you try to use, wouldn't just stop at killing the man who has an AK-47 in his hands, they'd also wipe out his family and several of his neighbors to use you as an example. The only recourse would be the ones that Islamist militants are trying to use against us now: throwing their own bodies into the gears of war in the hopes of getting enough dead bodies to jam up the machinery.
The Kurds had AK-47s. Sadam Hussein had Sarin. Guess who won?
But it isn't his place or right to "interpret" the law. He's trying to circumvent checks and balances if you feel that he is using the statement to put his own interpretation on the law. The branches of government are supposed to check each other to protect the interests of the people and therefore the country. Seems like that's kind of defeated if he is just going to make it up as he goes along, a la the wiretap mess that came about just recently.
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
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?
"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.
Man... You seem to have some reading comprehension problems.
First off, signing statements are no more legal than the line item veto, they just haven't been stricken down yet.
They're not legal for pretty much the same reason that line-item vetoes are illegal: the president is not granted the power to pick and choose the parts of the law that his branch of government executes. He either signs the whole law or vetoes the whole law. Once the law has been signed, he is obligated to enforce the law as it is written.
And speaking of the past usages of signing statements, did you know that President Bush has issued only a single veto since he took office, and has issued more signing statements than all other presidents combined?
Also, if you reread the bit of the constitution that you quoted, you'll find that it doesn't list 'public safety' as a reason to declare martial law anymore than it says that it doesn't have to be declared (just exercised, as you seem to think). It says quite clearly that public safety may require the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion. Habeas corpus is not martial law.
We are neither being invaded nor are we rebelling (yet), and since Bush and the executive branch haven't claimed to suspend habeas corpus (although they clearly have suspended it), there's no legal ground for the executive branch to act illegally. And beyond that, suspending habeas corpus doesn't imply that the government can act illegally, only that they can effectively jail people and not provide the body while the writ has been suspended. The GP was quite correct in saying that the government must be quite explicit about denying the writ and deal with the consequences thereof.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
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)
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
"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
That's not exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is when he hears muffled screams coming from the trunk; when there's reason to believe that a delay to get a warrant may cost a life.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood