Your mail is no longer private

Recently I sent a friend in Lebanon 3 out of production wireless cards I had to buy, because Ebay doesn't take Lebanese money or something like that, and also to avoid extremely high taxes they have on imported electronic goods.

I was thinking, if someone wanted to, they could claim I was sending IED triggers to be smuggled to hezbollah or the Iraqi insurgency, and really make my life inconvenient, trying to prove it was just for a robot, especially if my friend was using a clever ruse to acquire materials for such weapons.

I don' tthink he is, I have known him for over a year, and he sent me pictures of his final project, which is a six legged wireless controlled robot, but still.

I really don't care to be red-flagged as a terrorist, based on someone snooping through my mail.
 
At this point it isn't even the potential infringement of the 4th Amendment that gets me, but all these signing statements. A veto can be addressed by Congress, but a signing statement that says "well, that's fine, but we reserve the right to do so-and-so despite what this law says..." cannot be.

I wonder if our Democrat-controlled Congress might address the issue of signing statements someday?
 
And on that note, I'm already waiting to see how GWB will be trying to extend his hold of the power.
 
I'm not clear on something and if someone would please indulge me. I'm probably missing something but why is it scary for the president to know about the contents of your mail? It's not like you're conspiring to stage a revolution. I would figure if you're not a criminal or a revolutionary, a box of embarassing knick-knacks would be the worse case.

You have a point. However, there is not point in giving up privacy, no matter how trivial, unless there is a clear benefit. How will it benefit to let people read our mail?

Exactly. I've got nothing to hide when I go to the loo, but I still appreciate there being a cubicle before I drop my trousers (which, by the way, a number of places in America seem to lack, with barriers a mere 5 and a half feet high and huge inch-wide gaps at the sides). The same applies to my post: it's lovely post and most people would be thrilled to be able to look at it. But it's not theirs to look at! I like privacy. It's a good thing, and there needs to be a compelling reason to remove it.
 
Exactly. I've got nothing to hide when I go to the loo, but I still appreciate there being a cubicle before I drop my trousers (which, by the way, a number of places in America seem to lack, with barriers a mere 5 and a half feet high and huge inch-wide gaps at the sides). The same applies to my post: it's lovely post and most people would be thrilled to be able to look at it. But it's not theirs to look at! I like privacy. It's a good thing, and there needs to be a compelling reason to remove it.

Oh hey that's a good point. What I do in the loo isn't surprising and nothing nobody has ever seen or done before. However I would feel uncomfortable if someone was watching me as I went.
 
At this point it isn't even the potential infringement of the 4th Amendment that gets me, but all these signing statements. A veto can be addressed by Congress, but a signing statement that says "well, that's fine, but we reserve the right to do so-and-so despite what this law says..." cannot be.

I wonder if our Democrat-controlled Congress might address the issue of signing statements someday?
I would like to see SCOTUS address it . . . and squash it completely, like a nasty gnat.

One comfort I have is that signing statements have no recognized authority. I haven't researched the issue, but no news reports have noted that any court has ever deferred to a signing statement in its interpretation of the law. (And it would be very unusual for the court to do so if the signing statement contradicted the plain language of the statute: that is contrary to accepted canons of statutory interpretation.)
 
Another one (freedom) bites the dust.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16380470.htm

Bush quietly authorizes opening of Americans' mail

By James Gordon Meek

New York Daily News

(MCT)

WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York Daily News has learned.

The president asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.

"Despite the president's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.

Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.

"The (Bush) signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.

"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.

"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."

Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority.

"In certain circumstances - such as with the proverbial `ticking bomb' - the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.

Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances" which could refer to an imminent danger or a longstanding state of emergency.

Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.

But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.

Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

---

© 2007, New York Daily News.
 
So you're saying he had the power to search mail without a warrant as long as he went to FISA to get a warrant? It's 72 hours, by the way.

He didn't even need to get a warrant. He just had to tell FISA he did it. Since the USPS is a federal agency your mail becomes property of the government. Its only illegal for other people to open your mail not the government.
 
My freedom is not dusted away.
 
to think... america the land of freedom... now the land of the paranoid. and dick cheney too.

to be honest the american goverment is full of retards, but then again so is the british..

seems george bush is just digging a deeper hole for him self..
 
You think that's bad what about the other laws breaching civil liberites he's put into force. Land of what now?

The first is the original law, the second is Bush's amendment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/examples_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:
Article Tools

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."
 
It's not his job to interpret the Constitution, that's the job of the Supreme Court.

He's prtoececting you all from terrorism, breaching civil liberties is fine then isn't it ;):)
 
He's prtoececting you all from terrorism, breaching civil liberties is fine then isn't it ;):)

while inspiring terrorism by invading foriegn countries...
 
It's not his job to interpret the Constitution, that's the job of the Supreme Court.

Who are you to try to limit the interpretive powers of The Decider?!

;)

And man, Sidhe, is that post of yours depressing. The only image it conjures to mind is one I am actually hesitant to post even as fiction in today's freedom-loving America. (Ugh, you'd think McCarthy were personally monitoring my postings, although the way things are going lately, I wouldn't even be surprised anymore)

(Hint: only 250 more signing statements to go, and we could give him the send-off he deserves, via paper cuts with the paper they're printed on. ;) )
 
Back
Top Bottom