Bush claims right to open YOUR mail!?!?

[cap]

Bush Signing May Allow Gov't. To Open Your Mail

(AP) WASHINGTON A signing statement attached to postal legislation by President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant.

The White House denies any change in policy.

The law requires government agents to get warrants to open first-class letters.

But when he signed the postal reform act, Bush added a statement saying that his administration would construe that provision "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."

"The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress," said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that?"

She said the group is planning to file request for information on how this exception will be used and also asking whether it has already been used to open mail.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there was nothing new in the signing statement.

In his daily briefing Snow said: "All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for - in exigent circumstances - for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new."

Postal Vice President Tom Day added: "As has been the long-standing practice, first class mail is protected from unreasonable search and seizure when in postal custody. Nothing in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act changes this protection. The president is not exerting any new authority."

However, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized Bush's action.

"Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism. 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," Schumer said.

The ACLU's Beeson noted that there has been an exception allowing postal inspectors to open items they believe might contain a bomb.

"His signing statement uses language that's broader than that exception," she said.

Bush uses the phrase exigent circumstances: "The question is what does that mean and why has he suddenly putting this in writing if this isn't a change in policy," she said.

In addition to suspecting a bomb or getting a warrant, the law allows postal officials to open letters that can't be delivered as addressed - but only to determine if they can find a correct address or a return address.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association.

Typically, presidents have used signing statements for such purposes as instructing executive agencies how to carry out new laws.

Bush's statements often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," ABA president Michael Greco has said. The practice, he added, "is harming the separation of powers."

The president's action was first reported by the New York Daily News.

The full signing statement said:

"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.

[TVCasualty]

More good news. Ugh.

I guess my old trick of putting sensitive information I have to carry into Priority Mail envelopes, then addressing, sealing, and affixing postage is about obsolete. Make sure it's addressed to YOU, btw. Because of the (former?) warrant requirement to search first-class mail, simply pulling me over in my car with the envelope in my posession doesn't allow an officer to (legally) look in my sealed envelope without such a warrant. (Unless I put my weed in it and the dog finds it, which I'd never do!)

That privacy trick only works with USPS, not FedEx or UPS or the others. The others are private companies and you sign over to them the right to open your parcel if they feel like it, similar to the private eye-in-the-sky helicopter patrolling Jackson, Mississippi I started a thread about recently...

Lastly, I think the scariest phrase to hear in any discussion of privacy and freedom is "exigent circumstances." If the police want to search your residence or property or mail without a warrant, seems to me a mildly creative person could fabricate exigent circumstances easily.

Privatize the post office, repeal the laws that prevent competition with the post office (it's illegal to charge less than a dollar for shipping unless your are the govt), and ship with other carriers. then bush can't do a damn thing

[malefacter]

they ben opining mail illegally for years they just say the machine opined it

[TVCasualty]

Privatizing the PO would make it far easier to open mail. The private carriers can legally open anything you pay them to ship at any time with no warrant. Even with Bush's signing statement, it's still much harder to open USPS mail than to open privately-shipped mail.

The main problem across the board seems to me to be that governments are acting more and more like corporations and corporations are acting more and more like governments. There were instances of private security officers patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Katrina- a PRIVATE army carrying rifles patrolling streets of an American city! Were they vetted? Could they shoot to kill? Arrest citizens? By whose authority? And who gave the authority to that authority? Where is this headed?

[Hippie3]

private citizens have long had the power to arrest, even kill
to enforce the law.
that's why a homeowner can hold a burglar at gunpoint,
or even shoot one if necessary.
nothing new about that really.
we've all heard of the 'citizen's arrest'
and i personally have felt its' sting,
in texas one cold winter night
when 2 cowboys held me
lying face down in the road
with a 12 ga shotgun to my head
while we waited for the real police,
who thanked them kindly and let them go
but threw my ass in jail.
and that was 20 years ago.

[reverend trips]

You all should start mailing out turds in protest.

[TVCasualty]

But those Texans who 'arrested' you weren't working for a company hired by the government to patrol the streets, they weren't wearing uniforms, and they turned you over to the 'real' police.

The guys in N.O. were there because for the most part the 'real' police weren't, (or they were looting), and though a private citizen can initiate a citizen's arrest if they witness a crime, he or she can't legally start ordering you around because they feel like it. For example, let's say no crime has been committed but some Halliburton tool 'orders' you to leave a public area. Do you comply? If he points his rifle at you and you STILL refuse to leave, can he arrest you? Shoot you? Is he personally liable for his actions, or do you have to sue Halliburton?

[Hippie3]

my policy is to pretty much
to obey the man with the gun,
esp. if i have no friendly witnesses

[Hippie3]

btw
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_c...8common_law%29
for some interesting background
on the power of the government
to 'deputize' ordinary citizens into a 'posse'
in a law enforcement emergency,
one would think the city of NO is fairly safe
in using 'private' security forces by long legal precedent
in western common law.

Originally Posted by TVCasualty

Privatizing the PO would make it far easier to open mail. The private carriers can legally open anything you pay them to ship at any time with no warrant. Even with Bush's signing statement, it's still much harder to open USPS mail than to open privately-shipped mail.

You did not think this one through friend

Firstly, there are major differences. One, right now you are forcibly prevented from having any choice. Let's say, for example, that the government regulations preventing any competition to the post office were not in existence. You have 5 different, competing, letter-delivery companies - all with different policies.

As they need customers to maintain their existence, they are forced to cater to the demand of customer's needs. If you object to a company opening your mail, you won't do buisness with them. Other companies would cater to the demands of customers who want their mail unopened.

Now I imagine you're about to say "but how are you going to know that they didn't open your mail!?!?"

And i'd point out that even if it were impossible, that'd be no different than our situation today. Except that we lack any choice whatsoever. There would be a lot of different ways it could be found out. One would be the media - if they're good at anything, it's uncovering dirt. Another would to be watchful. If you recieve, or your recipient recieves, a package that showed signs of have being opened, you've got evidence. There would be plenty of other ways.

And then you'd sue the hell out of them for breach of contract. Or report the story to a watchdog from the media that would expose it on a national level. or report it to something similar to the Better Buisness Beaurau (sp?).

In any case, we'd be better off then we are now

Originally Posted by TVCasualty

There were instances of private security officers patrolling the streets of New Orleans after Katrina- a PRIVATE army carrying rifles patrolling streets of an American city!

Is there something wrong with this? Or would you rather everyone be subject to the whims of lawless thugs on the streets? I certainly hope not. The govt had robbed the entire region of its ability to defend itself by confiscating their firearms, and at the same time left them without any defense. The army is a testament to the efficiency of the market, despite corrupt government.

During the times of the revolution, our entire army was comprised of citizen-militias, aka minutemen. That is why our constitution, though ignored, prohibits standing armies for more than two years at a time. Other than the fact that these people were getting paid by non-government sources, how is what they were doing different than the minutemen of the past or standard security forces which are hired by buisnesses worldwide?

Originally Posted by TVCasualty

Were they vetted? Could they shoot to kill? Arrest citizens? By whose authority? And who gave the authority to that authority? Where is this headed?

The answer would be no different than if you carried a gun and asked what the law would permit you.

[suckerfree]

He can have my junk mail.

Seems like you can do anything you want these days as long as you are the pres and you can blame something on terrorism...

[siam_jim]

humm.. i was in the states a few years before the collasp of nam, and was getting mails from my late father monthly, all my mails from overseas were always open and stamped clearly that the government had done it and i was only 7 yrs old.

however these days terrorism has cause the ways and means of living in freedom and privacy a bit harder even here.

Siam