Bush Asserts Feds Can Open Mail Without Warrant

This is an interesting situation. I always assumed email was not secure, but snail mail was. Apparently the administration believes that regular mail can be opened without a warrant. Opinions from Orgahs?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bush says feds can open mail without warrant

By James Gordon Meek, New York Daily News

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.

However unlikely, the "imminent danger" clause has standing before the law. So in the case of the proverbial "ticking bomb" it would be justified. I have a little trouble believing snail-mail would ever be involved in a "ticking bomb" speed scenario -- as are most of you.

The other reason -- continuing threat -- seems a valid reason to search suspect mail, but I simply do not see the need to do so without a warrant. I cannot imagine a federal judge refusing to sign promptly such a warrant if there is any plausible reason for suspicion....and we do have federal judges cleared for security sensitive rulings.

Can someone please explain to me how the hell the executive branch of our government can "grant" itself additional powers?

Call me nieve, but I was under the impression that the executive branch received it's powers and rights from the legislative branch, and if it exceeded these boundries, the judicial branch could step in and stop them.

How can the President or any other executive officer change the laws?

The sooner someone takes these "signing statements" to the Supremes, the better off we will be. At least we will finally know whether we live in either a republic or a dictatorship.

"You can pass a law, and I can sign it, but I can pretty much ignore it, so :tongue:"

Edit-> I see the Slashdot crowd is already pushing for impeachment. Never heard of the Memorial impeachment initiation process, learn something new everyday.

The worrying bit, to the lemur, is the elasticity of a phrase like "exigent circumstances." Sure, that includes the 24 scenario with the ticking bomb, but any half-awake lawyer could stretch it to mean just about anything.

Why exactly do we maintain a FISA court, if it's not being used?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

Call me nieve, but I was under the impression that the executive branch received it's powers and rights from the legislative branch, and if it exceeded these boundries, the judicial branch could step in and stop them.

---

Not true. All branches are granted their powers by the Constitution. The executive branch isn't dependent on the legislative for it's powers.

Quote:

---

Why exactly do we maintain a FISA court, if it's not being used?

---

Some would argue that FISA was unconstitutional.

I don't really have a strong opinion on this yet- just wanted to make a few observations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rameusb5

Can someone please explain to me how the hell the executive branch of our government can "grant" itself additional powers?

Call me nieve, but I was under the impression that the executive branch received it's powers and rights from the legislative branch, and if it exceeded these boundries, the judicial branch could step in and stop them.

How can the President or any other executive officer change the laws?

---

The Judicial branch has done it before, and maybe the Legislative too. The FBI and CIA ran this program for decades and it was only recently suspended. As far as taking this to the Supreme Court: They've started using international law to judge internal US cases so; are we living under a dictatorship or an oligarchy? :shrug: You want to start using hyperbole then I'm right there.

I fail to see how a "ticking bomb" scenario would require the opening of mail without a warrant. If the package is ticking, just put it in the safe room, get a warrant, and call in the bomb squad. Who is going to send anything in the mail that is extremely time-sensitive? It's the frigging mail, it's going to take a few days to get to where it's headed anyway, and delaying it a day or so to get a warrant is easy.

Just another right's grab. :no: Time to start training pigeons...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Not true. All branches are granted their powers by the Constitution. The executive branch isn't dependent on the legislative for it's powers.

---

Excellent point. Each branch is also limited by the constitution. A relevant passage springs to mind: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Excellent point. Each branch is also limited by the constitution. A relevant passage springs to mind: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

---

I'm sure this issue has already been adressed due to the previously mentioned "decades old" fact. There's must be pleanty to research on this.

Found it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNo0_klKzis
:laugh4:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:inquisitive:

That's what we call Tampering with the Mail...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Excellent point. Each branch is also limited by the constitution. A relevant passage springs to mind: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause."

---

Indeed. And my question would be: Is something still technically considered your possession once it's entered the postal system?

Even if your are not currently in possession of an item your should still have have the right of property - anything else would be rather odd.

NB: I am not sure what the exact legal terms in English are. In German there is a clear distinction between "Besitz" on one hand (this basically means your are physically in possession of an item) and "Eigentum" on the other hand (which means that you are the ultimate "owner" of an item).
If I lend my car to a friend it is his "Besitz" but still my "Eigentum".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Even if your are not currently in possession of an item your should still have have the right of property - anything else would be rather odd.

NB: I am not sure what the exact legal terms in English are. In German there is a clear distinction between "Besitz" on one hand (this basically means your are physically in possession of an item) and "Eigentum" on the other hand (which means that you are the ultimate "owner" of an item).
If I lend my car to a friend it is his "Besitz" but still my "Eigentum".

---

I get your point, but I doubt that putting something into the postal service for delivery is quite different than lending your friend your car. For example, if something you mail to a friend arrives completely destroyed, the Postal Service is not liable for it. If you lend your friend your car and he brings it back totally destroyed, you can sue him for damages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

For example, if something you mail to a friend arrives completely destroyed, the Postal Service is not liable for it.

---

That does not mean that it isn't still your (or the recipient's) property

Of course you could compare the situation with the searching of your belongings/luggage when you go on a plane.

While the luggage is of course still your's the security personell still has the right to rummage through your rather personal belongings - not to mention the groping (last time at Schiphol I was close to telling the guy that if he continued what he was doing the way he was doing it he might have to marry me).

I have to admit that I am a bit dumb here - is the searching of luggage at airports something that falls into the responsibility of the lgislative branch, something that the executive can decide, or is it even something the airport operator could decide?

What is it with this aversion to warrants?

Seriously, it's such a slap in the face when there's already a working channel for the government to utilize in order to perform searches and other functions "necessary" (yeah) for the security of its citizens. It's not like they cannot ever do any sort of searches should reasonable suspicion be there. But of course, they just have to try to work around that so-called inconvenience; and for what purpose? Whatever the purpose the end result is a weakening of the rights of Americans themselves, with little to no benefit for the oh-so-important "National Security" (blanket argument for everything, I guess). Nice intention, Mr. President. I'm not one of the forty million-something Bush-bashers but I'll have to raise my middle finger to you this time.

And then there's the Fourth Amendment to boot. Something, oh, about no unreasonable searches and seizures and those done ought to be with warrants. But of course, with all the mumbo-jumbo of laws and the vagueness of the Constitution I'm sure they already came up with a "good" case that it is in fact all legally justified; and nooo, the founders didn't mean what they wrote down in the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and I don't believe I came up with any clauses in the Constitution where it says that the government can go around bashing people's doors without warrants. Except may be that old damnable "Elastic Clause" that has been abused continuously since, well, forever.

:no:

Well, I'm not a North American, but i will give an opinion.

Invading the mails of people is bad.It's an invasion of the privacity.Will you let the Mr. President, read your leters finding words such as bomb or terrorism in it?Whats the real purpose of it?

I see it useless.

Gut reaction: This is bad.

GOP instinct: It's probably just a useful tool.

Liberal Devil standing on my shoulder: Gays! Impeachment! Hybrids! Social programs! Trees!


Ugh. Here we go again. I'm staying out of this one. Have fun. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

What is it with this aversion to warrants?

---

I think this is a very astute question. A lot of the perplexing behavior from the administration has to do with avoiding warrants -- when warrants were easily available! It's not at all hysterical to look at this pattern and ask, "What the heck?" Why does the administration put itself on the line over and over again to avoid a perfectly legal system of gaining permission to eavesdrop/search/open mail etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think this is a very astute question. A lot of the perplexing behavior from the administration has to do with avoiding warrants -- when warrants were easily available! It's not at all hysterical to look at this pattern and ask, "What the heck?" Why does the administration put itself on the line over and over again to avoid a perfectly legal system of gaining permission to eavesdrop/search/open mail etc?

---

Not only are warrants easily available, but they are also available retroactively. Is the FISA court infiltrated by islamofascist spies? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Even if your are not currently in possession of an item your should still have have the right of property - anything else would be rather odd.

NB: I am not sure what the exact legal terms in English are. In German there is a clear distinction between "Besitz" on one hand (this basically means your are physically in possession of an item) and "Eigentum" on the other hand (which means that you are the ultimate "owner" of an item).
If I lend my car to a friend it is his "Besitz" but still my "Eigentum".

---

According to the DMM, Domestic Mail Manual , ownership of content is irrelavent, and decide-able by courts, Rather the Postal Service (US) is resposible and accountable for the condition, and delivery, of the transmission medium. Sadly, if Johnny sent Betty a marriage proposal via snail-mail, the USPS is only resposible for delivery of the envelope. Ownership of the marriage proposal retains in Johnny.

All that said; I don't know a single US letter carrier who would surrender mail entrusted to them, to ANYone without sufficient warrant.

Quote:

---

I don't know a single US letter carrier who would surrender mail entrusted to them, to ANYone without sufficient warrant.

---

yeah ,they will bring the letter safely to you through hail and rain and wind and snow ....but not through an unending war on terror .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius Flaminius

Invading the mails of people is bad.

---

So is using the mails constitutional privacy as a means to act against the people. I can see both sides of this but I really think that with the apparent ease of available warrants this shouldn’t even be an issue.

When I worked at FedEx we had the ability to open questionable packages (I personably found one filled with pot) but FedEx is different than the USPS.

One for the lawyers, I guess, but if the executive opens mail without a warrant, and finds a plot to blow up Graceland, I assume the mail is not admissable as evidence in court. So to actually prosecute, the executive will need to find other evidence of the plot, and I'm not sure if it can then use the inadmissable mail evidence to get a warrant for something else.

One thing that bothers me is that a warrant = paper trail. Without the warrant/paper trail, it makes it easier to ship someone off to a secret prison, never to be seen/heard from again. Gathering inadmissable evidence through unwarranted wiretaps and mail-reading is pointless if the end goal is prosecution. Which leads me to believe the end goal is not prosecution.

My co-workers and I discussed this yesterday. The consensus was: we spoke, and signed, oaths to protect the sanctity and security of the mail. To surrender any piece of mail, is gonna take:

1) a badge and ID
2) a warrant
3) a receipt
4) photos

The Postmaster strolled by, and suggested that he could simply order our compliance. :whip: Hooting and hilarity ensued.:laugh4: The shop steward pointed out that we must obey orders, then document our protest. (More hoots and laughter).:clown:

I conclude that if some law-enforcement-type demands surrender of mail from a local mailman, trouble will happen. Heh, the post office, hotbed of revolution - who knew?

Sadly, it's probably a moot arguement; we're so automated that 'profiled' mail could be plucked from the mailstream long before a local delivery guy gets his hands on it.

What's that I hear? Just these actions screaming Totalitarianism.