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?
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.
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
Yes, but they have only been in power... today. Can we give them 24 hours or so?
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.
The new congress is just now taking office, so it's not like this is their fault.
I would think this is more of a judicial aspect now though. Until someone sues because the government has read their mail, no one can stop Bush from making these statements. Once challenged, this signing statement (or perhaps all signing statements) could be found unconstitutional.
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...
Yes, the new Congress will immediately pass a bill making signing statements illegal. Unfortunately, President Bush will attach a signing statement to that law invalidating it.
Gotta admit it, the guy knows how to play the chess game of politics.
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
NO!
This is America we Demand instant gratification!
I want my BigMac Meal, Fiberoptic TV/Net/Phone, a new car, laws protecting net nutrality, and the impeachment of bush as of yesterday!
they had better get on the ball!
[/silly]
Honestly I just hope they take the ball and run with it, prefferably starting with this signing statement, as it is a rather horrible one.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
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.
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 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.
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)
Thomas Jefferson badly paraphrased Ben Franklin just like everyone on Slashdot does? Neat. But I bet Alexander Hamilton modded him -1 Redundant, the bastard.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
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.
So, wasn't the new congress going to start trying to do something about these signing statements?
Soon. The new Democratic majority in Congress is being sworn in right now, today, this hour.
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
"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?
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.
Honestly, don't come to Canada if you believe that it is a more democratic or free country than the US
Essentially, whenever Canada has a majority (which is impossible without strong support from the eastern provinces) it is a benign dictatorship; being that everyone in the West doesn't count (lower representation in the Senate, Lower representation in the House of Commons) we are constantly abused in favour of eastern interests.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?"
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.
Besides impeachment, Congress also has the ability exercise it's influence as it holds the purse strings that fund all of the presidents "projects". That has also been found to be effective in the past, and will be a new experience for our current president. I think we'll see a different side of G.W. once he finds out that the House and Senate don't exist to simply rubber-stamp his wants and desires.
Todd
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!
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.
Actually, the use of signing statements, especially in this instance, is unconstitutional. The Constitution very clearly states that the Executive branch will enforce all laws passed by Congress that aren't vetoed. Attaching a signing statement to a bill to change that bill is outside of the President's powers and if the signing statement overrides a provision of a law he has then overstepped his Constitutional powers.
Clones are people two.
- 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
. . . 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.
That's supposed to be a state/local issue, so blame your local school district or state board of education first. That NCLB adds to the mess doesn't take the responsibility away from lower levels of government.
The mortgaging of our livelihood to countries like China, Japan and Russia
And this is the government's fault? Why is the government blamed for corporations moving jobs out of the country?
The unemployment situation that squeezes the middle class
This isn't the government's problem either. Blame the guys making $$$ at the tops of corporations as you start your own company.
My Sysadmin Blog
"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.
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.
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!
Mind you, that was during the Carter administration, for any of you partisan boobs out there.
It's also worth mentioning that Jimmy Carter (like so many presidents from both parties) also issued dozens of the things. As did all of the folks since. Honestly, people are so obsessed with GWB they don't bother to see if the people more on their side of the fence have used exactly the same tools.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Since the signing statements have no legal force, I can't see how they're unconstitutional. However, if they President actually acts on the signing statement in a way that's counter to the law, that's certainly illegal.
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.
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
"Lie about sex" while under oath in court. Amusingly, we take the compromise of our judicial process quite seriously, even if judges are bone-headed assholes. When you're in court and under oath, you NEED to pass on the CORRECT information to the court for the system to work; if you don't, you can manipulate the system into doing anything, like finding innocent people guilty as murderers and having them put to death. We don't try to draw a fuzzy line here; if you willfully lie, and we can prove you knew you were bullshitting us, you're in a lot of trouble.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Meanwhile I've been mailing all my bills in with a stamp depicting the US flag, with it adhered to the envelope such that the flag is displayed upside-down. No one has ever attempted to contact me to determine the source of my distress.
But then a letter isn't a seafaring vessel, and besides it isn't a recognized maritime signal anymore.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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.
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.
Wanna Bet?
I know your post was moded "Funny", but the more accurate category would have to be "Funny - but frighteningly close to reality".
Space for rent, inquire within
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.
Politics have become like drug companies they prefer to not fix problems but rather stretch them out. They want consistency of there rule and will do anything to solidify that rule. Lets look at your points:
1: This is a reoccurring issue I saw it when I was a kid I see it now as a parent, schools can never be good enough but everybody wants there school to be better than the rest. Unfortunately schools have also become the battleground for every other societal ill. I want to school when DARE started now it's creationism next it will be robots rights or some such nonsense. We need a constitutional amendment separating public schools from teaching morals or political mantra. Teach them to learn teach them the basics and push them to expand, this might mean no more sex ed or gym or football. Inset faction here that will be upset about ancillary activity being missing but I'm sure that they will find other ways to fund those activities.
2: Again a basic amendment not allowing debt. This would make it harder for the politicians to spend to win and shore up fiscal responsibility. Nobody wants to do this as it takes away there power.
3: See 2
4: I'm not sure what our foreign policy is, it seems to involve dropping bombs on people. I don't mind being the big kid on the block but you have to show that you have the will to follow through. Specifically if you want to stop terrorists from hurting you the cost of doing so has to be higher than they can accept, be it destroying religious bits, hurting there family or hurting there country. It's distasteful but they only want to stop them from being willing to attack you. Look at the Palestinians suicide bombers family's are set for life this would seem to be a motivating factor.
5: Can not speak to this.
6: Get big business out of politics, remove the money the influence etc and our politicians will be better for it.
7: See 6
8: See 4, If that does not work FAE bombs do wonders and wont hurt the oil. The 51st state of Iraq would be nice but I'll settle for no army of there own and a big airbase similar to Japan.
9: Meh never see or hear any of it. Let the generals do what they need to and stop playing arm chair quarterback.
10: As to getting a good president I have no idea last good one I remember is Regan and his wife seems to be running the country most of the time.
No sir I dont like it.
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.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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."
There is this thing called an Executive Order he can issue as he wishes. Would you prefer he frame his thoughts in that context? Why does it make a difference?
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Of course, Oliver North sold guns to Iran to fund the CIA that Congress had kneecapped, and now you see him on TV as a news correspondent. I'm not sure that withholding funding is going to be as useful as you surmise.
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?
Umm...dozens vs. an estimated 750 for GWB. And most of the statements previous to Ronnie were not of the "nice law, but i'm not going to follow it" type that Georgie specializes in.
You may want to read up on the issue before acting like you haven't read up on the issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
Right, impeachment is so radioactive it's never used to enforce the president's faithful execution of his duties. Impeachment is only used to neuter a popular president because he had extramarital sex and lied about it.
Thou shalt not begin a subject line or post with the word "Umm".
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.
The president cannot use Executive Orders as he wishes. The president cannot order anybody to break the law. Nor can he break the law himself.
Bush is using presidential signing statements as a way to act as his own legislature -- he is amending law and using a virtual line-item veto -- or at least he thinks so. These statements don't carry any force of law. At most they are just evidence that he intends to break or ignore the awl.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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.
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
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence"
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
"The scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
There's a good bit of wisdom in cliches.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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+
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.
Thats because 70% of the Canadian population LIVES in the east.
I don't see why its such a tragedy that 70% of the Canadian population gets more representation than 30%.
Fuck parties.
I care about what the motherfucker in office is doing right now, and I don't care what party he is or what people from other parties have done in the past.
The enemies of Democracy are
Ralph! Aren't you supposed to be retiring? Stop snorting the cocaine... and somebody take his liquor bottle away.
:)
Harper is PM now... Jean has been gone for a while Ralph. You can stop having nightmares about him.
The only plot in Ontario about Western Canada is that we don't want to live there.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
No, in most cases, I would prefer that he frame his thoughts on legislation in the context of *signing* the legislation or *vetoing* it. That's how presidents are supposed to handle legislation. On the one hand, he has hardly used the veto at all since he was elected. On the other hand, the sheer quantity of signing statements indicates that he has disagreed with hundreds of provisions in statutes that he signed. Why use signing statements instead of the veto? Two reasons: 1) Because there's no tried and true recourse against signing statements and 2) Because they don't make news. It's essentially a way of giving himself a really flexible line item veto.
Remember, signing statements and executive orders have historically been used to clarify understanding of how laws should be implemented and how organizations within the executive branch should operate. That the executive uses them to claim new powers and exempt himself from laws appears to be an unintended consequence of the historical unwillingness of Congress to appropriately check presidential power. We're starting to pay the price, and I think it's time we reevaluate the system.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
"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?
There's exactly one way in which the courts should view these signing statements:
"The signing statement is evidence of the president's intent to violate the law."
Actually I recall voting them in and encouraging others to do the same as a choice of the lesser evil. That choice was made with a firm belief that they would toss this dictator out of office and try him for high treason in a time of war. The first thing Dean did was announce (and don't get me started on the fact that I elected person x to make decisions, not Howard Dean) that he knows that is what everyone wants but that it isn't what they are going to do. Not in 24hrs or 24 months.
How about withdrawal from Iraq? Nope, not happening either. Instead of "we can win this war" he says that we are responsible. The result is the same. Iraq built their infrastructure the first time, and Iraq can do it again. No matter what we do we aren't exactly going to have good will from the Iraqi's. If you want to impose American ideals on the Iraqi's whether they like it or not then declare Iraq a US territory. No matter how poor the reasons we did conquer that piece of dirt and Americans died for it. Otherwise our ideals dictate that the Iraqi people have the right to govern themselves, and that includes the right to fight civil wars and let themselves be subjected to fundamentalist religious leaders. It is especially hypocritical when we ourselves are under the thumb of a fundamentalist religious leader.
Hell, even if they began bring the troops home as fast as transports can bring them and they executed Bush for treason I wouldn't be happy. I want all the erosion of personal freedoms (including those that have transferred power to business and corporate interests where they conflict with the rights of individuals) that have occurred in the past decade to end.
"Except for when Americans first gained independence from England."
Try reading The Cousins Wars. The UK lost the war because they didn't have the heart to crush the rebellion. Contrast to the ability of an armed Confederacy to break away from the Union.
"Except when Israel became a recognized state."
Again, the British didn't have the stomach to deal with such minor trivialities only two years after WWII. They had India to worry about.
"Except how Iraqi insurgents are currently winning a war with no purpose."
The same Iraqi insurgents who weren't able to overthrow Sadam's tanks and sarin gas? Once again, this is an example of insurgents winning because the "oppressors" weren't oppressive enough; pop a nuke off in Baghdad (and any other hotspots that come to mind) and things would quiet down remarkably fast.
"Whether you can win a fight easily is not important either. The second amendment was right then and it is still right today."
Perhaps, but does anybody understand what it says? I seem to recall the amendment mentioning "the militia," which is the same group the constitution authorizes the president to call out to put down insurrections. Other than defending yourself from the acts of individuals, the Second Amendment seems to ensure the right of you, your friends and neighbors to be involved in putting down the rebellion you seem to be in favor of.
"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."
The militia exists so that people can put down insurgents like you without having to wait for the federal government. The militia exists as a law enforcement body of last resort, when regular law enforcement bodies just aren't enough. They fight for the law, not against it.
. . .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
I care about what ... doing right now
The point is that much of the breathless commentary here is focusing on signing statements as if that were something new, or partisan per se. They're simply not.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I don't get the impression that anyone is focusing on signing statements per se, but rather their content.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Ok, purjury is a valid reason for impeachment. So then, if purjury (which is a class 3 felony in IL) is a cause for impeachment, what then of a president who institutes an illegal wiretapping program (wiretapping is a class A misdemeanor in IL, which is 1 step below a felony). No, I'm not a lawyer, but I do have the Illinois Legislator's webbsite bookmarked, whis has a nifty search feature. Maybe a lawyer could clarify if they will increase charges if you are a rampant, repeat offender?
I got nuthin
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."
"Mind you, that was during the Carter administration, for any of you partisan boobs out there."
Unfortunately for your argument there are still a few of us who think dirty corrupt presidents are bad regardless of whether there were dirty corrupt presidents previously who subscribed to a different class of group think.
Although I will give the liberals one thing, at least they never actually used the word 'intellectual' as if it were a slur. Last I checked, acting based upon intellect is what... intelligent... people strive for. I mean really, how can you respect an individual who just called someone a 'pointy headed intellectual' and thereby called himself an idiot?
If he issues an executive order to break the law (executive orders neither make, nor change the law) then he is personally responsible and accountable for it. For instance, an executive order to violate the Constitution by searching mail without a warrant would be evidence in black and white that would make an impeachment hearing (and a criminal trial following it) a mere formality.
A signing statement on the other hand is just an opinion. The executive branch with enforce the law in accordance with his signing statement and will use it as defense if ever called into question. But you can't impeach someone for simply giving their opinion on how a law should be interpreted.
The effect is the same but the semantics change the accountability factor dramatically.
I think it's possible that you're so defensive about the topic that you're parroting this talking point without actually accepting reality.
His talking point is correct. Unfortunately for him it doesn't support his case. The corrupt and bad actions of this president are corrupt and bad regardless of what any other president has done previously. If a president is violating the constitution and abusing power he should be punished. If presidents before him got away with the same offenses then that is a sad historical fact. But that doesn't mean a bad course of action should be continued. Carter should have been smacked down for his wrongdoings just as surely as Bush should be. Frequency and severity of the statements and intentions only comes into play when determining how hard to smack.
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)
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);
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.
Does this mean I can open him up and perform an autopsy before he dies? In a sense identify if he has a heart by removing it to check him for a pulse. The presumption is {all accused} are guilty before being considered innocent. The opposite of existing laws.
Have Tardis, will travel.
If you voted them in so that they would impeach Bush, I have to tell you that you voted mistakenly. That was never a plan proposed by any serious candidate, for the simple reason that they don't want to look like idiots. I disagree with the administration at least as much as you do, believe me. But impeachment isn't a good solution. You impeach Bush, you get Cheney in office. You impeach Cheney next, you get whoever he appointed as his VP. The impeachment process was designed to work that way: it's not supposed to be used just because you disagree with the other party's politics, however violent that disagreement may be. You had your chance to throw him out for political reasons, in 2004. You didn't, so you're gonna have to wait another two years, and a Democrat-controlled Congress is your best shot at making it work, so if I were you I'd get behind them.
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.
The administration's line would be that he's not altering the law or violating it, or even intending to violate it. He's merely clarifying what the words mean to him, in a kind of "2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2" sense.
They've discovered that when you get to write the dictionary, the words can mean anything you want them to mean.
I think that legally you're on stronger ground waiting until he actually violates the law. Intent to violate the law is not in general a crime, unless you want to get your article on Slashdot tagged "thoughtcrime" and "orwell" before first post.
At least this one is relatively easy to catch him at. The ones where his signing statements mean keeping people out of court are the real pain.
"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
"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
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
I think GP was refering to how distribution of representation largely represents historical figures. For example, PEI has 140,000 people, yet four MPs and senators, whereas the national average is roughly 1:100,000 MP:Population and 1:300,000 Senator:Population.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Though you gotta admit that recent campaign finance reforms limits the influence of the corporations/rich.
But also, it's not what powers your government has, it's how they use it. I think Americans vote for more officials than any other country, but look at where it got them!
Really, though, if you want to whack some sense into people who compare Canada with the US on most measures, try comparing it with western/northern Europe.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
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.
"The impeachment process was designed to work that way: it's not supposed to be used just because you disagree with the other party's politics,"
It isn't a question of Republican politics. In general I don't support Democrat politics anymore than I do Republican (at least if you exclude the Republican politics that only came about to prop up the Republican president). GWB broke the law, repeatedly, not even the President is above the law. This is precisely what impeachment is for. It doesn't matter who follows him into office, you aren't going to expel a party by tossing one guy. The message is still sent, loud and clear, the people of the United States will NOT just take whatever Bush force feeds down their throat.
"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.
"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."
Funny that you mention separation of powers. Touching on my earlier statement, the Post Office is an Article I (i. e. Congressional) power, not Article II (executive). I'm pretty sure that includes the Postal Inspectors that the Department of Justice would have to go through to actually execute those warrantless searches.
It's an interesting theory, and it goes even one step further. The USPS is now an independent agency, affiliated with neither the executive nor the legislative branch. It was part of the executive branch until 35 years ago, but was spun off.
The Postmaster himself is chosen by a committee, and the committee is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Where that leaves mail inspections... I have no idea.
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.
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!
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
Paraphrased from the CBC:
P.E.I. has four electoral districts, each representing an average of 33,824 voters (the average in Ontario is one MP for every 107,642 voters). Logically, Canada's smallest province should have fewer ridings, perhaps only two, but because of a 1915 senatorial clause added to the boundary changing formula, P.E.I. was guaranteed that it will never have fewer MPs than it does Senators. So to this day, P.E.I. has four Senate seats, which were granted at its entry into Confederation under the terms of the British North America Act, and four federal ridings.
Riding redistribution must by law take place every 10 years, adjusting the federal electoral districts to reflect population changes. All provinces are guaranteed that their number of federal seats will not decrease, even if their proportion of the Canadian population shrinks dramatically. So the number of seats is bound to keep going up in the absence of dramatic changes to the way we elect a government (through bringing in some form of proportional representation, for example).
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Haven't confirmed it though.