Slashdot Mirror
Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant
don_combatant writes to note that President Bush claimed new powers to search US mail without a warrant. He made this claim in a "signing statement" at the time he signed a postal overhaul bill into law on December 20. The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. According to the article, "A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised a review of Bush's move."
Oh wait, good thing signing statements aren't generally regarded as law, but rather his view of the law.
><));>
Bush keeps saying he wants everyone to work in a bipartisan fashion, but I don't think "bipartisan" means what he thinks it does. Rather bipartisan appears to mean to him "do it my way" or "because I say so" and "I'm the decider".
Seriously though, and back on topic: Even the American Bar Association has described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our Constitutional system of separation of powers". When is the American public going to wake up on both sides of the isle here? From a Republican standpoint, this administration has gone so far off from Republican ideals, that it is not even funny. Republicans used to be the ones who were for a strong military, smaller government, less government intrusion into our lives and lower taxes and what we have is a military that is weaker and smaller now than it has been in decades, we have the largest federal bureaucracy in the history of the world, fewer Constitutional rights and lower taxes are only for large corporations. From the Democratic side, well..... those guys just got hosed for the last few years and they do not appear smart enough to position anyone capable enough to compete with someone even as unappealing and dangerous to our lives as Bush and Co.
I worry for our future as we have signed away many of our Constitutional rights and protections, we have alienated many foreign countries and allies after squandering perhaps the most support we've ever had in history after 9/11, we are entrenched in a combat zone that has very little positive outcome potential, we are signing away our financial future through one of the largest deficits in history and Cheney is on record as saying deficit spending does not matter.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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
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!
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
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?!?
These are mine.
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.
Have you seen the Supreme Court lately? At least 4 of them would be happy to let Bush cross out the entire 4th Amendment from the original copy of the Constititution in the National Archives with a magic marker, and he could probably get a 5th to go along with him if he claims that he really needed to read everyone's first class mail to keep the Terrorists from killing us all.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
"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."
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".
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.
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
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.
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?
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?"
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.
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
"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.
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
Care to qualify that with some kind of evidence or precedence? Or are you simply assaulting them for their broad label of "conservative"?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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
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.
"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.
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!
Yes, he is.
This is not at all true. Near the bottom, the article does not "reveal" that "Presidents have always had such power". It instead quotes a White House spokesman that doesn't even claim Presidents have always had such power, but instead that the Constitution does not forbid the government to engage in such searches. While this is certainly true, it is irrelevant: statute law can restrict the authority of the executive beyond the limits the Constitution places on the government. The Constitution places an outer limit on what the law may allow, but not everything that is within the scope permitted to the government by the Constitution is legal for the President, particularly when law is passed expressly forbidding the action at issue.
So that the Constitution permits warrantless searches in certain circumstances, and that those exceptions might apply to the mails as well, has no bearing here.
The fact is this: Bush is signing a law adding to the protection of first-class mail beyond what is obligatory under the 4th Amendment while claiming the right to ignore it in every case in which the provisions of the law aren't redundant with those of the 4th Amendment, directly in opposition to his oath and duty to faithfully execute the laws.
Ordinarily I don't respond to ACs, but...
The framers created the constitution and bill of rights because they were facing the type of threats that we are currently facing: totalitarian government control. Terrorism is the worst thing our country has had to face in possibly centuries, granted, and it needs to be dealt with directly. But, there is very clear evidence that the Bush family and their buddies want to make their stamp on history as not the regime which battled terrorism abroad, but as the team who brought the term "executive power" back into the oval office. Rumsfeld and Cheney both worked for Gerald Ford, and were appalled at the amount of power taken away from the executive branch after Watergate, and they supposedly blamed Ford for that. The absolutely phenomenal amount of liberties being shed under the flag of Fighting Terrorism, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc, provide evidence to that end.
Do you feel safer since 9/11? Are you confident the Freedom Tower will stand forever because W can open your mail? Did hanging Hussein and killing 3,000 american soldiers as punishment for Hussein executing 148 Sunnis shut down the suicide-bomber factories? Don't even get me started on the irreversable damage done to the establishment clause...This is about control and power, not security.
That's why we can meet in groups and discuss politics without control. That's why we can protest in public. That's why we can carry guns. That's why we can publish information and criticisms of the government. Once you let those rights go (which W has been doing a great job on, summarily), it is really hard to go back; and if we can't discuss what our leaders are doing publicly and criticise them and protest their actions and not have to worry about if that letter to the editor of the Times was intercepted and "stored as evidence of terrorism", then we lose our quasi-democracy and become a full-fledged plutocracy/oligarchy, just like the one we went to war to split from in the 1770's.
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
... 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.
>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.
So does this mean it is time to start encrypting our snail mail?
"but at the same time complain about the 2nd Amendment and the general pro-gun attitudes of Republicans."
We're not anti-gun, we're just anti- the pro-gun people such as yourselves who constantly pop up with off-topic comments like these, evangelizing about what we "really should" care about. Really, unless your plans involve yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" while jumping off a balcony, how exactly would easy access to firearms prevent the Bush Administration from reading your mail?
"an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive."
If a republic becomes "truly oppressive," it's already too late; there's little that easy access to firearms could accomplish other than make things bloodier. Rifles are meant to defend civilization, not to act as some sort of back-up plan if civilization fails.
"Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989)."
They're not limited to rifles. The example you cite famously involved tanks. They also have airplanes with bombs, artillery, and any number of mean and nasty ways to kill you without being anywhere near you. And a truly oppressive government, the bogey man you try to use, wouldn't just stop at killing the man who has an AK-47 in his hands, they'd also wipe out his family and several of his neighbors to use you as an example. The only recourse would be the ones that Islamist militants are trying to use against us now: throwing their own bodies into the gears of war in the hopes of getting enough dead bodies to jam up the machinery.
The Kurds had AK-47s. Sadam Hussein had Sarin. Guess who won?
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
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."
The distinction you are avoiding is between a war where someone like Bush Jr simply begins attacking a non-aggressive opponent for reasons economic (or imaginary), and a war where an attack is made to defend against such unreasonable actions (eg, Kuwait, WWII.) Aggression on the one hand, defense on the other. Got it now?
The "Gestapo", as you call our authorities, has arrested many, held them without recourse to representation or even a hearing before a court, tortured them. It has also tapped other's phones, opened their mail, put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.
If you believe these crimes must be committed against me before I can legitimately object to them or characterize them as representing a negative trend, then I firmly disagree.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Does the guy have to lie about a blowjob to get impeached?
"Have the gestapo been buy to arrest you yet? No? Then your comment is obviously dead wrong."
Have the department of homeland security been by to arrest ANYONE yet? Yes? Then your logic is obviously dead wrong.
Believe it or not, everyone who posts on slashdot does not have to be posting from a prison cell before there is a problem. The 'gestapo been buy to arrest you yet' measure is also WAY the hell beyond where I draw the line. The right of the lowest citizen to privacy when he phone sexes his wife or even talks to her in a mushy tone he would never let outsiders hear while she travels abroad on work trumps the latest installment of Christians versus Muslims the crusades have returned.
The bill of rights, the right to privacy, the limitations of government powers, the Constitution requirement for warrants in searches (which would include searching my communications), and the right to stockpile and bear arms should the law be twisted to allow the creation of a mad religious regime to come into power are what this country is about. Without those things we would be better off reverting to English subjects than subjecting ourselves to own corrupt government and hypocrisy.
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."
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)
Every US citizen should regularly read quotes from The Supremes:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice 1928 Source:dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
"Men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law."
Justice Robert H. Jackson Source:Sam Ervin, The Whole Truth
"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority."
Justice David Davis (1815-1886) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1862-1877 Source: Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2 (1866) DAVIS, J., Opinion of the Court http://liberty-tree.ca/qb/David.Davis.Quote.5879
Find them. Read them. Absorb them.
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates."
Except that it has been proven that counts have been drastically wrong in a large number of districts and it has been shown that the opportunity and technical feasibility existed to rig the elections in those districts. There is a mountain of evidence to support a claim of Republican electronic vote tampering in the last presidential election. You make it sound like things went smoothly. That is ignoring the dubious circumstances of the first Bush election. With everything that went on there, I wouldn't have been comfortable with any result. You can shake a pinball machine to gain an unfair advantage, but if you shake too much the machine will register a tilt. Sometimes you lose the ball or miss the shot despite shaking the machine. It is likely that someone was shaking the machine during the elections, but the democrat vote was such a landslide that it overcame the advantage.
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing!"
I just filled out a petition to initiate the impeachment process against Bush for the undisputed violation of at least 4 US Codes of Law, the Geneva convention, and the Constitution. I showed this to 10 other people. All of them agreed that Bush should be impeached. They were all afraid to put their names on the paperwork. This wasn't some underground anti-government group or a like-minded club. These are separate individuals. They were literally afraid that they would be persecuted like others have.
If you say the wrong keywords on your phone conversation it will be wiretapped without judicial oversight and anti-American (read anti-bush) sentiments CAN get you investigated. Bush has empowered himself to have you arrested without being charged and detained indefinitely without trial. Who knows how many times he has used this? By definition nobody is informed, if someone is arrested this way they simply disappear. After being detained without charge or trial, Bush has empowered himself to literally torture you.
It sounds crazy. Like something out of a sci-fi novel or something but its not. All of this fact and is not even debated. Bush actually has the nerve to admit all of this publicly. He claims he has the right to do all this because congress said he could go in Iraq. Congress does not have the authority to allow Bush to conduct searches of mail and communications without a warrant, that is Constitutional Law and would require an amendment.
Hey maybe you support prayer in school. Maybe you don't want to see tax hikes or want smaller government. Strong support of the right to bear arms? Perhaps you feel that abortion is murder. That's great. Some of those things I agree with, some I don't. Others I might agree with the principle but believe in a different solution. But don't back this bloodthirsty madman who wants to set himself as a dictator just because he has an (R) by his name on the television screen. Unless you actually want to see things move to the point where even a slashdot post can get you arrested people like Bush need to be put down hard. The moment you have LESS rights there is a problem, as time goes on you should have MORE rights, not less. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the people who died and lost loved ones there. My family before me fought in Vietnam, WWII, the civil war, and the revolution. MY forefathers spilled blood and puss in the mud so that I would have the freedoms I enjoy. I am not willing to give up any of those freedoms because I am afraid of some terrorist and need GWB to protect me. Our forefathers were at war with over 60% of the population loyal to the other side. Instead o
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
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush