Bush's latest signing statement allows government to open your mail

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 5 2007, 07:12 AM) [snapback]371184[/snapback]</div>

What is your point? What types of surveillance do you think are appropriate to protect our country from harm? Where should we start and where should we stop? I am interested in your thoughts here.

Thanks.

 

I'm going to interject a centerist (well right of center) viewpoint: Both parties need to meet and from a consensus like they did during at least the first couple of decades of the Cold War. John Negroponte just left as Director of Nat. Intelligence. Some think part of his problems were dealing with Rumsfield. Ironically, Robert Gates was a CIA director and would probably work better with him.

I'm trying to say continuity is important. If cabinet members are signinfcantly changing the tatics on The War on Terror every couple of years - that's a problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jan 5 2007, 08:43 AM) [snapback]371195[/snapback]</div>

And even with all that, you'd not really be any safer. I'm sure most folks here would bridle at living in the kind of security state that the average Israeli lives in, and yet successful terrorist attacks occur there all the time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jan 5 2007, 08:43 AM) [snapback]371195[/snapback]</div>

try responding rationally if you can.

and yes i am in favor of a national ID card with implanted biometrics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 5 2007, 09:01 AM) [snapback]371199[/snapback]</div>

In a way they did. This is not a new law being passed. The right to search first class mail existed before and exists now - this is a statement of that fact. It is in FISA and the prior mail act. By passing this law Congress - both parties worked together to maintain what was available to our intelligence agencies previously. Again, this is not new law.

 

The whole act of signing statements is worrisome... as the article said, it's a way for the president to attempt to side step the checks and balances that are in place.

That being said, it would be my hope that, when someone does open a mail item without a warrant, the courts clarify that such an opening is against the law, thus in the end preserving the checks and balances in place.

As for an answer to the question posed: surveillance is appropriate when judicially approved, and only so far as the judicial branch determines is legal. Bush's signing statement in effect says that, if they think you might be a terrorist, regardless of their basis for that thinking, they can open your mail. Such an act goes directly against the 4th amendment:

Reasonable search and seizure, as upheld by the courts, requires a warrant, except in some very specific circumstances:
1. voluntary consent for the search by the property owner.
2. when the individual doesn't possess a "reasonable expectation of privacy"
3. Exigent circumstances - officers must move quickly for the sake of preserving evidence that may otherwise be removed or destroyed, or where there is a belief that people in need are present.

Now, dbermanmd, in what way is Bush's statement calling for searches related to foreign intelligence gathering legal within the realms of the 4th amendment?


Surveillance starts at the judicial branches discretion, and ends at the line drawn by the 4th amendment. No one, not even Bush, can go beyond that legally.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 5 2007, 09:05 AM) [snapback]371200[/snapback]</div>

Name the last one? And since the anti-Homocide bomber wall has neared completion the # of attacks has diminished significantly. That coupled wiht targeted assinations, profiling, fully funded and supported surveillance programs and intelligence agencies and a universal commitment by ALL politcal parties has been essential in their success to date.

ALSO - the removal of IRAQ and Saddam who funded each and every suicide bomber $25,000 CASH and supported all the various terrorist organizations allied against Israel (and the US) has not hurt. Neither has the pressure Bush has put on Libya to get out of the terror business - or the pressure he has put on Syria and Egypt. Furthermore, now that the terrorists are fighting for their survival in Iraq, they have less time and attention and resources to put against Israel.

Fighting terror directed against us all and the Israeli's requires the interactions and cooperation of multiple countries and political parties.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 09:20 AM) [snapback]371206[/snapback]</div>

The last one? Sounds like you already know, and it is not my job to do research for you. Even with the wall they built a few years ago, there were serveral suicide bombings in 2006, as you probably already know. Google is your friend. Besides, I thought you were arguing for surveillance, not walls, perhaps I misunderstood, sorry. I will grant that there were more before the walls were built.

 

Can we maybe stay on topic of mail surveillance at home, instead of changing over to issues in the middle east? It does no good to argue about terrorist attacks in other countries when we're talking about possible infringement on our constitutional rights by the executive branch.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 5 2007, 10:16 AM) [snapback]371221[/snapback]</div>

Fine by me. I was just pointing out that surveillance doesn't equal safety or security. Maybe a better question would be how would reading everyone's mail have prevented 911?

 

I think perhaps now is the time to start babying our neocon supporters with a letter of support sprinkled with a little baby powder. A few hundred million or more if you include the ones which would be generously sent by our foreign friends would keep the signing statement active. If you can't join them beat them. Please note this is my personal opinion!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 5 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]371229[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure I get your point here. Are you asking for more fake terrorism so we can have more fear so they can do more signing statements and walk on more civil liberties? Or is my sarcasm detector totally out of whack this morning? And there's gotta be a Chad Castagana joke in here somewhere, too.

 

Presidential signing statements are basically statements by the president that he intends to violate the law that he is signing. They do not give him the legal right to do so, and they are definitely not binding on future administrations, nor are they a part of the law itself.

Like appointing a person to head a federal agency who is openly opposed to the constituted mission of that agency, a signing statement is a way for the president to state that he opposes the will of the Congress, and that he will not abide by the laws passed by Congress and signed by himself.

A signing statement is an attempt by the President to overstep the powers granted to him by the Constitution, and to undermine the system of checks and balances that the founders of the U.S. designed in order to prevent the abuse of power. He can get away with such behavior only when the Congress is to cowardly or too wishy-washy to stand up to him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 5 2007, 12:24 PM) [snapback]371229[/snapback]</div>

Ever notice how all the radical lefties on this site are from CA?

Let's pray for the big quake that finally takes it into the ocean...

 

I'd personally rather keep my privacy and take a greater chance of dying in a terrorist attack. What's the point of living if your life is run by someone else? All of this "security" is really just allowing the terrorists to control our lives. Indirectly, mind you, but they're still having too much influence on how we live.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jan 5 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]371243[/snapback]</div>

Ever notice how the RW dipshits are from FL? Ooops, Chad Castagana was from CA, guess that disproves both of our theories. And since I'm a general nice guy, I won't wish any more hurricanes on you, it seems like God has punished you enough already:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 5 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]371241[/snapback]</div>

Come over to my part of the world here near ground zero and mention fake terrorism. Stop by a few of my neighbors homes and talk to the widows and children without fathers. Fake terrorism? 1993 - WTC I that was fake too????

I will stop now ...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 5 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]371242[/snapback]</div>

OMG - Please send tylenol to my office.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 5 2007, 10:13 AM) [snapback]371219[/snapback]</div>

Forget it... not worth my time now. You figure it out.

 

It's always lovely to see a thread dissolve like this.

Anyway, the point about some government official wanting to read mail and declaring a potential terrorist connection just to get away with it bothers some people and is dismissed by others. I'd prefer that more people be bothered...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 5 2007, 11:21 AM) [snapback]371251[/snapback]</div>

No one is denying 911. I was asking what he was getting at with his comment suggesting baby powder in letters, since that seems like "fake terrorism" to me, as compared to "real terrorism" like 911 or the real anthrax mailings, or McVeigh etc. I can see where even "fake terrorism" would be terrifying to the recipients, though, so is Chad Castagana in Gitmo yet? How would the gov't reading your mail prevented 911?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul @ Jan 5 2007, 11:28 AM) [snapback]371253[/snapback]</div>

Likewise. There's an old proverb that says people get the government they deserve. Sadly true.