Bush Asserts Feds Can Open Mail Without Warrant

**Xiahou** · 01-04-2007, 21:32

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?

**Ser Clegane** · 01-04-2007, 21:51

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".

**Xiahou** · 01-04-2007, 22:11

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.

**Ser Clegane** · 01-04-2007, 22:18

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

**Ser Clegane** · 01-04-2007, 22:31

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?

**AntiochusIII** · 01-05-2007, 00:29

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.

**Caius** · 01-05-2007, 00:42

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.

**Lemur** · 01-05-2007, 03:33

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?

**KukriKhan** · 01-05-2007, 06:28

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.