ForumGarden

White House Defends Warrantless Mail Inspection



USA TODAY

Mimi Hall and David Jackson January 5, 2007



WASHINGTON -- The White House on Thursday defended a policy allowing the government to open mail without a warrant, despite criticism that the crime-fighting tactic might lead to privacy breaches.



Bush administration and U.S. Postal Service officials said citizens' mail remains constitutionally protected from unreasonable search and seizure. But White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States needs to have the power to inspect mail in emergencies.



The mail controversy erupted Wednesday after a report in the New York Daily News that President Bush on Dec. 20 attached a so-called signing statement to a new postal law. The statement grants the government the authority during emergencies to bypass a law forbidding mail to be opened without a warrant.



Snow said Bush was simply reiterating authority the government already has under the law.



Postal Service spokesman Thomas Day concurred: "The president is not exerting any new authority."



Snow did not say what emergency circumstances might call for inspections of the mail.



Brian Walsh, a lawyer at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the authority likely would only be used in extreme cases, such as if police learned a bomb or an envelope containing anthrax or another biohazard was in the mail.



If the government didn't have the authority for prompt inspections, the mail -- particularly overnight delivery -- could become "a courier service for drug dealers or terrorists," Walsh said.



Privacy rights advocates expressed concern that the administration could loosely define emergency situations to include looking at mail sent by or delivered to people who might wrongly be included on the government's terrorist watch lists.



The American Civil Liberties Union said such "deliberate ambiguity" was troublesome.



It "raises a red flag because of President Bush's history of asserting broad powers to spy on Americans," ACLU Director Anthony Romero said.



Others accused Bush of making an end-run around the Constitution and Congress.



"This opens the door into the government prying into private communications," said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice. "It's something we associate with a totalitarian or police state."



In Congress, where Democrats took control of both houses Thursday for the first time in 12 years, some lawmakers expressed unease about the practice.



"Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "But history has shown it can and should be done within the confines of the Constitution. This last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law is the exact type of maneuver that voters so resoundingly rejected in November."

I tell ya lads, it seems the squeeze is really on over your way, you gotta watch them politicians. I understand that governments need to be able to do certain things, but like accountable said, this is way over the line. Time for a little step back I think.

Anything in the name of preventing terrorism eh? Let's see, we can't have skycops cause that takes too much money so we don't care much about terrorism there but we sure do when it comes to people's mail!

I can't post any way other than emotionally on this right now so I'll just say this is yet another reason this SOB president is one of the most dangerous men in America.



How many more years??

mrsK;506609 wrote: [quote=Accountable;506603]White House Defends Warrantless Mail Inspection



USA TODAY

Mimi Hall and David Jackson January 5, 2007



WASHINGTON -- The White House on Thursday defended a policy allowing the government to open mail without a warrant, despite criticism that the crime-fighting tactic might lead to privacy breaches.



Bush administration and U.S. Postal Service officials said citizens' mail remains constitutionally protected from unreasonable search and seizure. But White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States needs to have the power to inspect mail in emergencies.



QUOTE]



I don't know about you but I don't think I would like people reading my mail.

I know nothing about politics but don't you have to have a referendum to talk about things as important as this & don't the majority have to agree before any laws are bought in
The 'signing satement' is just like the executive orders that Clinton liked to use. They are decrees. I don't understand how the Pres. is able to get away with making law with neither check nor balance, but there you are.

It's like Bush is telling Americans that he views us as an Enemy.:-3

You'd think recent elections would've sent a signal to those in power positions that the people aren't HAPPY with them! How bold can they be?

If they want to read my mail more power to them, maybe they can pay some of my bills for me.. I'd say thing are getting a bit out of control on Capital Hill..:-5

CARLA;506797 wrote: If they want to read my mail more power to them, maybe they can pay some of my bills for me.. I'd say thing are getting a bit out of control on Capital Hill..:-5


AMEN!

At this point in my life, the only mail coming into my house is either a bill or crap. I am all for the government opening my electric bill and paying it for me!

How sad is it then in the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" every citizen is being percieved as not only the enemy but guilty until proven innocent.

I have never been a fan of the current administration and have certainly voted accordingly. I sure hope that the people that I voted for understand that they were elected for reasons such as this and take some steps to make me proud to be an American yet again.

I'm hopeful, too, LD...let's see what happens next.

From my email today...."Representative Adam Schiff announced this week that he has cosponsored legislation that will make the American people safer, Congress more honest and open, our economy fairer, and will build a better future for all of America’s children. These initiatives, called the “100 Hours” legislation, are a group of bills that will be taken up in the first 100 legislative hours of the 110th Congress and consist of ethics reform, fiscal reform, homeland security, minimum wage and other key priorities.



This legislation was drafted in response to the American people’s call for greater integrity in Washington. In November 2006, Americans called for common-sense proposals needed to improve the everyday lives of all Americans. In response, the “Six for ‘06” agenda addresses critical economic, homeland security, health care, and educational concerns of ordinary families. The “100 Hours” legislation builds on the “Six for ‘06” agenda.

I think that the Americans here should take heart from the fact that people of all political persuasions in the states do seem to have a good instinct to stop such things when they go to far, and that like in any country, politicians try and do get away with pulling stunts such as the one that the current administration are trying, but in the long run, in the states they don't usually get away with it, or at least they get away with it less than in other places.

I think that as long as you remain committed to the actual ideals that made America the great place that it is, and don't give in to fear, you will be alright. Its not an easy time right now, its not an easy time anywhere, (we all are having problems) but in the past, when push came to shove Americans have usually done the right thing, I don't think that this time will be any exception, though doing the right thing can often be quite difficult sometimes, and not always very popular either.

The absolute brilliance of the US system is that there is always another party waiting in the wings. Despite the real potential for loss of civil liberties under the present administration, various organizations, defiant citizens and the passionate love of freedom which burns in many of us will defeat nincompoops like Bush & his cronies!



(I like that paragraph!)

Diuretic;506937 wrote: And I would like to think that there are many in the military who would refuse to turn their guns on their own citizens.
Darn! You stole my thunder. :p



Lulu2;506818 wrote: From my email today...."Representative Adam Schiff announced this week that he has cosponsored legislation that will make the American people safer, Congress more honest and open, our economy fairer, and will build a better future for all of America’s children. These initiatives, called the “100 Hours” legislation, are a group of bills that will be taken up in the first 100 legislative hours of the 110th Congress and consist of ethics reform, fiscal reform, homeland security, minimum wage and other key priorities.


I don't trust the Dems any more than I do the Republicans ... maybe even less. The only way to effect change in big gov't is through political parties; it took me a long time of head banging to finally come to that conclusion. What we need is a billionaire or two to start throwing money at the Libertarian party so we can neuter the gov't, if only a little.

If anarchism worked, Diuretic....why does society work so quickly to overturn it? Seems to me it's like communism...every now & then some well-meaning soul decides it's a grand idea, even though human nature shoots it down every time. Don't you think we need structure to live separately and together?

Anarchy is a utopian dreamed, based on the idea that human beings don't start being very nasty to other over things about 5 hours after they realize that no one is watching them.

In any anarchic state, what happens is about 4 months of a party, tops, then the most nasty people with the most guns take everything, because they just feel like it, (and because its always, always been good to be the king). Then the other less organized people get some guns and fight them, then some other slack crowd will eventually get involved, there will be various acts of nastiness from nicking bicyles to raping children, and murdering families in pits, the ordinary joe soaps go about wailing and crying cause they don't understand mans inhumanity to man and will generally be the ones dying trajically.

Eventually one of the nasties will win, invent a system justifying their own existence, perpetuate that system, and eventually everyone will agree to live by it, and it becomes the accepted norm, until someone suggests another revolution because of general unhappiness that life is unpleasant, then we start all over again. Its called history.

............ and human nature.

Galbally;507210 wrote: Anarchy is a utopian dreamed, based on the idea that human beings don't start being very nasty to other over things about 5 hours after they realize that no one is watching them.



In any anarchic state, what happens is about 4 months of a party, tops, then the most nasty people with the most guns take everything, because they just feel like it, (and because its always, always been good to be the king). Then the other less organized people get some guns and fight them, then some other slack crowd will eventually get involved, there will be various acts of nastiness from nicking bicyles to raping children, and murdering families in pits, the ordinary joe soaps go about wailing and crying cause they don't understand mans inhumanity to man and will generally be the ones dying trajically.

FG? :-2

Shows to go ya what a catchy title will do for a thread.



http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... ight=snail

:yh_doh

Accountable;507266 wrote: FG? :-2


It is kinda a little microcosm of human nature init???? Still s'not that bad (yet).

Whoa....want to say more about that last line, please?

Hmmm...let me add another view. Our nearest genetic relatives are chimps and bonobos (sometimes called "pygmy chimps," but that's not really correct.)

Chimpanzees are male-led societies, with constant struggles for dominance and breeding rights. Bonobos are female-led societies, relatively peaceful, with stability and general calm. Both species obviously "teach" their young how to behave but groups widely separated with no contact with others of their species behave in identical ways.

Behavior seems to be "cultural," but inherent.

We share genetics with both these species. Sometimes I feel that our lives are a constant struggle between the chimp within us and the bonobo within us.

Our behaviors as humans are very similar, if you study cultures world-wide and although some differences are obvious, in general, we value the same things and act in the same ways even if we've never met or studied distant humans. The Yanomamo, for example, value the same behaviors as the Eskimo....common values we all share (supposedly.)

So, as someone who's studied primate behavior, I've come to believe we have much more of a genetic determination than previously thought. This doesn't sit well AT ALL with many religious folks, obviously. But I don't find it demeaning or disturbing.

We are what we are.

Mrs.K...not meaning to derail this thread, but we absolutely did NOT evolve "from" apes! We evolved WITH apes from a common ancestor. Think of it as a big bush, with a common trunk and various branches splitting off at different times.

About 15 million years ago, organutans split away and began their separate destinies...then gorillas, then chimps/bonobos and the many species which evolved as "human."

I've heard a lot of creationists argue that, if evolution were a fact, there wouldn't be apes. They're not educated in the science, that's all.

Has anybody seen anything about this 'signing statement' on the TV?

Nope.

msm?

(No wonder that chimp looks unhappy, Diuretic.)

"Display of wealth" COULD be considered something more representative of the human's phallus--largest of the primates. Ever wonder why that might be?????

Hmmmmmmm?

Life's all about passing on our genes, isn't it?

Gorillas, despite their size, have a very small penis. They live in a "harem" society and have no sperm competition, so they don't need a large "applicator."

Orangutans are the only non-social ape. They don't live in family groupings and he breeds any cycling female he happens to encounter (WHETHER OR NOT SHE WANTS TO DO IT!) He doesn't care about sperm competition, and he has a very small penis, as well.

Chimpanzees and bonobos have a LOT of sperm competition because females have a wide variety of sexual experiences. If a male's going to pass on HIS genes, he needs a relatively LONGER "applicator," so his sperm gets to the egg first.

Now, consider the human male...longest of all. What does this say about our original social system? :sneaky:

BINGO! I LOVE the way you two have cleverly picked up on the wisdom of our evolutionary traits! :wah: