Bush does it again

[unixronin]

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

[...]

"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.

"A word means what I want it to mean; nothing more, and nothing less."  So said Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass.  George W. Bush continues to demonstrate that he holds much the same opinion about laws and the Constitution.

(Crossposted by request to neph_politics)

Comments

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

The fundamental question is, are we at war or are we at peace? There are different rules for each, and in wartime, the President gains a LOT of powers that don't exist in peacetime. Is there potential for abuse? Yes. But we face an enemy that is attempting to obtain the materials to completely destroy our country because we don't abide by their religious and cultural ideals, and SOMEBODY has already used our mail system to send biological agents. All of the focus on Bush ignores the systematic abuses committed by the Clinton administration against gun owners, including a lot of dead Americans, where due process was ignored and evidence falsified.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

SOMEBODY has already used our mail system to send biological agents.

This is true. And the perpetrator was never caught. There's never been a repeat, and there's no evidence that foreign terrorists were responsible; it appears to have been a one-off crank.

The problem that poses, of course, is that you never know what to open, because there can always be another one-off crank. Long-term repeat cranks like Theodore Kaczynski are the exception rather than the rule. So do you just open everything? If there's a definite, specific, known, documentable threat, then there's time to get a court order as required by the law. If there isn't one, then it's just another fishing expedition. And fishing expeditions into anything on the grounds that "Well, you never know, there MIGHT be a crime being committed" violate due process and the principle of presumed innocence. Are we ready to give those up? Because once the precedent is established that they no longer hold, it'll be a hell of a job to ever get them back. (Frankly, I worry that it may already be too late.)

This isn't just about opening mail. It's about a continued process of undermining the entire basis of our legal system. Sure, requiring the government to comply with the laws makes a little extra work for the government in some cases. But if the government doesn't obey the laws, then what example is there for anyone else to do so? The government must hold itself - and be held - to a higher standard, or it loses all respect.

You seem to be saying that this is OK because it's "in a good cause". But once the precedent has been firmly established that the President is not bound by Constitutional checks and balances and can essentially act with complete autonomy to write and dispense law on the whim of the moment, what happens when a future President Feinstein/Pelosi/Clinton/Kerry/Kennedy/Schumer decides that "in the current state of emergency", it's necessary to confiscate privately owned weapons lest they fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists? Who defines what constitutes a "good cause" or a "national emergency" or an "imminent threat"? As the proverb puts it, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

You said, "we face an enemy that is attempting to obtain the materials to completely destroy our country because we don't abide by their religious and cultural ideals". For starters, I suspect that completely destroying our country is, and will probably forever remain, far beyond their capabilities. What they more seriously seek to destroy is our culture and our way of life. But have we really won if, in our efforts to prevent them from doing so, we destroy our way of life ourselves? Because that's what I see happening: our government systematically destroying our freedom in order to "save" it.

All of the focus on Bush ignores the systematic abuses committed by the Clinton administration against gun owners, including a lot of dead Americans, where due process was ignored and evidence falsified.

Speaking personally, I don't for one moment ignore the abuses of the Clinton administration. However, I also don't for one moment believe that the abuses of the Clinton administration justify or excuse the different, but no less serious, abuses of the Bush administration. (Indeed, it can be argued that in some cases, the abuses of the Bush administration build upon the groundwork laid by the Clinton administration; though Bush has taken far bigger and more dangerous steps in the direction of unlimited government power than any previous President since Lincoln.)

Far from adhering to a higher standard, the standard of behavior to which we hold our government has fallen to a frighteningly low ebb. The government appears to be fully aware of this, and is apparently taking full advantage of our collective apathy to maximize its own power while it can, at the expense of our liberties and freedoms.

This is probably a good time to remember the words of the lately departed former President Gerald R. Ford:

"If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it's big enough to take away everything you have."

[nephthys510.livejournal.com]

x-post to neph_politics?

thanks!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Done. :)

Ummmm

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

DearHeart, your brain isn't quite functioning yet. You aren't alaric, sorry.

Re: Ummmm

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Oops......... Fixed

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Your quote applies pretty well to the NY Daily News article, rather than the President's statement. What Bush said was "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."

In short, his claim is that the previous standard of 'exigent circumstances' would still apply and he's claiming that this law doesn't trump FISA. Claiming that this is 'new powers' is just nonsense.

It is very possible that Congress was trying to limit the old standards and FISA. Bush, however, is saying the Executive Branch's interpretation is that in these powers still apply as that have for years. In any case, Waxman's statement and this article are pretty much lying or horrifically mistaken.

For the record, 404c says "(c) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee."