Signing statements/Mail privacy - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sty · 01-04-2007, 09:45 PM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...76_mail04.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON — President Bush quietly has claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.

Bush asserted the new authority Dec. 20 after signing legislation that overhauls some postal regulations. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open mail under emergency conditions, contrary to existing law and contradicting the bill he had just signed, according to experts who have reviewed it.

A White House spokeswoman disputed claims that the move gives Bush any new powers, saying the Constitution allows such searches.

Still, the move, one year after The New York Times' disclosure of a secret program that allowed warrantless monitoring of Americans' phone calls and e-mail, 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.

"You have to be concerned," a senior U.S. official agreed. "It takes executive-branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

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.
advertising

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane changes. But the legislation also explicitly reinforces 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 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" that could refer to an imminent danger or a long-standing state of emergency.

Critics noted the administration could obtain a warrant quickly from a court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge, and the Postal Service could block delivery.

But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances, national-security experts agreed.

Martin said Bush is "using the same legal reasoning" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

Now, weren't the Signing Statements supposed to be totally non-legally binding, have almost no meaning whatsoever? Now from this article, I get the feeling that somehow their meaning has now risen a big higher.

As an outsider, I really get only filtered news from US, but somehow the news about your personal privacy rights et al are getting worse by month.

Chimera · 01-05-2007, 03:58 AM

From virtually any previous administration, such a move would be of little consequence. However, as the current trend seems rather orwellian at its core there is far more scrutiny placed on American Privacy issues in general. In my opinion this was a bad move on the Presidents part, and he likely knew it....thus the signing statement in the dead of night. I am left to wonder what actions have been taken that we Don't know about, and saddened that I actually worry about it at all. It does not say much for my Government that I can't trust them anymore.

dksuddeth · 01-05-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming 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" that could refer to an imminent danger or a long-standing state of emergency.

what a load of crap. They know full well that the 4th amendment requires warrants, were it not for the BS social engineering by the judicial system.

01-05-2007, 03:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
Chimera Banned	From virtually any previous administration, such a move would be of little consequence. However, as the current trend seems rather orwellian at its core there is far more scrutiny placed on American Privacy issues in general. In my opinion this was a bad move on the Presidents part, and he likely knew it....thus the signing statement in the dead of night. I am left to wonder what actions have been taken that we Don't know about, and saddened that I actually worry about it at all. It does not say much for my Government that I can't trust them anymore.