open mail without warrant

[404 Not Found]

Here is a topic that needs a bit of scrutiny.

Chew on this one., as it seems like the next wiping of Bush's ass with the U.S. Constitution has become reality. Bush had written into a "signing statement" that the President could open Americans' mail. I do not understand the national protection of the NSA or any other Govt. agency opening a piece of 1st class mail. This is not about parcels or bulk rate mail...this is directed at 1st class mail.

Does this bother anyone? What will be next on the agenda when it concerns the U.S. Government delving into your life?

The following letter was delivered to President Bush Monday, in response to an article published in the NY Daily News which revealed that Bush had written into a "signing statement" that the President could open Americans' mail.

January 8, 2007

The Honorable George W. Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am deeply concerned about the signing statement that you issued on December 20, 2006, regarding H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It raises serious questions about whether the government is reading Americans’ first class mail without obtaining a search warrant or other court order as required by statute.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act rectified in a different location an existing provision of federal law, without change, that states as follows:

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.[1]

In your signing statement, you stated that the executive branch would construe this provision “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.”

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006 on the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program, Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether the executive branch was relying in other contexts on the theory that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force gave it the authority to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other statutes. Specifically, Senator Leahy asked: “Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens?” The Attorney General attempted to avoid answering the question, but ultimately stated: “Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here. We are only focused on communications, international communications, where one party to the communication is al Qaeda. That is what this program is all about.”

You have already confirmed that you have authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of communications without obtaining the court orders required by FISA. Your December 20, 2006, signing statement now suggests that you believe you have the authority to violate the law with regard to opening regular mail. The American people and Congress are entitled to know whether you have acted on that theory. Please answer the following question: has your administration authorized any government agency to read Americans’ first-class mail without obtaining a search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service regulations?

I look forward to your expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold

United States Senator

1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11

The only 1st class mail I get, usually has a due date for payment inside. If they want to read my bills...then go for it!

I see this move as nothing more than a means for private companies such as Federal Express, U.P.S., TNT, Airborne Express and many others to make more monies, due to fears over Big Brother invading their personal freedoms. A warrant would be required to obtain mail from private sources...but not the U.S.P.S. Interesting as to why this was done and how will this actually help our security.

Most people will use email and attach a document in business. I either fax or attach everything I do at work today.

This obstacle and misuse of the Government is just another blatant misuse of powers this Decider and Chief has taken as his rite to do in these times of Terror and Fear.

It would really be nice if the Terror and Fear factor was not as abundant as it has become from my own government!

BTW...the Senators letter is a published document, so credibilty and sources are from the Senator himself.

I gotta stop watching C-Span in my free time!

[Money]

cool beans

[Blueblaze]

I think this is mainly refering to packages, which might contain bombs, or atleast semi-contructed parts of bombs, not so much a small letter with your credit card bill. Thats basically the main purpose, and besides, its not like I have anything to hide, long as I don't get a late fee from them reading my bills (not like I have any), so I guess they can just read my bank statements then.

[404 Not Found]

Parcels are not part of this. This entire signing is in regards to 1st Class mail...AKA the Letter!

At the bottom of Feingolds letter you will note:

1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11

What you are noting Blue was already covered prior to this signing in 1996. This was in regards to 1st class mail and not parcels.

[Vykromond]

EDIT: important content edit

[Asmodeus]

The more I read the less I want to about America. I fuckin hate Bush and the people who voted him into office. I voted twice against that tard...he has a very low approval rating right now...and he's the President of the U.S. God help us all.

Where did you get your source btw?

[Blueblaze]

Parcels are not part of this. This entire signing is in regards to 1st Class mail...AKA the Letter!

At the bottom of Feingolds letter you will note:

1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11

What you are noting Blue was already covered prior to this signing in 1996. This was in regards to 1st class mail and not parcels.

Oh ok, thanks for the clear up. Well, consciously its natural to want to just say this is an invasion of privacy, and it truly is. Of course, when you look at the context on the situation, its a sacrifice you must be willing to give up for the safety of a nation in a time like this. This law does set up in the future for possible religious persecution to occur, which will happen someday in America, but as of now, probably we, nor anyone we know, will have a letter opened. Besides, if someone had crediable knowledge that a piece of mail had an explosive device in it, wouldn't you want them to be able to open it and have it blow up on them rather than you?

[Squeezer]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the whole idea of innocent until proven guilty has diminished under Bush's reign?

[Blueblaze]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the whole idea of innocent until proven guilty has diminished under Bush's reign?

That applies to people in a court of law, that never applied to objects that cannot speak, nor defend one's case. Its not like someone can call the sender of the letter and ask them, "Is this a bomb?" When you have something potentially dangerous, and you can't track the source, what are you suppose to do, send it off and let someone get killed?

[Aquatiq]

Does this bother anyone? What will be next on the agenda when it concerns the U.S. Government delving into your life?

Honestly... no. It doesn't bother me that they might look at my sent/received mail, and it doesn't bother me that they might look at other people's sent/received mail. What will be next on the agenda? I'm not sure, but if it's anything like this... I still won't care. Just looking at the issue by itself, rather than in the context of Bush's "legacy" like most of you are. I'm politically apathetic, so I really don't give a shit if someone's going to flame me with "You need to get educated on the truths" and other bullshit that doesn't apply.

[Facetious]

u need to get educated on the truths...

Seriously, though, my privacy from the government is pretty important to me, and while I haven't read this thread at all, I'd be pretty pissed if they got involved in my affairs in any way.

[Squeezer]

That applies to people in a court of law, that never applied to objects that cannot speak, nor defend one's case. Its not like someone can call the sender of the letter and ask them, "Is this a bomb?" When you have something potentially dangerous, and you can't track the source, what are you suppose to do, send it off and let someone get killed?

That may be how you feel, but the way I see it is that the govt. has no right to look into my affairs. When they begin to invade my personal security, I have an issue. There's a major difference between opening my bills, and opening a ticking package.

Besides that, it's little baby steps like these that eventually lead to totalitarian regimes. Of course, when someone suggests something like this, everyone calls them paranoid, but under Bush's rule, there have been quite a few violations of American rights. If these continue, then before we know it, we will be living in 1984.

[Vatican Assassin]

Oh ok, thanks for the clear up. Well, consciously its natural to want to just say this is an invasion of privacy, and it truly is. Of course, when you look at the context on the situation, its a sacrifice you must be willing to give up for the safety of a nation in a time like this. This law does set up in the future for possible religious persecution to occur, which will happen someday in America, but as of now, probably we, nor anyone we know, will have a letter opened. Besides, if someone had crediable knowledge that a piece of mail had an explosive device in it, wouldn't you want them to be able to open it and have it blow up on them rather than you?

This is not a law, it is a "signing statement", which technically has no lawful power, but is an interpretation of a bill offered by the president. No president has had so many as Bush Jr. An example was the bill outlawing torture which was led by John McCain. Bush did not veto the bill, which would make him seem pretty evil, but his signing statement said in effect that as commander and chief he could torture people if it was really necessary. It is interesting to note that although Bush has not veto'd a single bill, another first for presidents this far into their term, that he has often offered signing statements which overturn them. So, basically, Bush lets the bills go through so as not to upset congress or the public, and then quietly writes a bogus signing statement making it ok for him to bypass the law. If the president doesn't follow the law, then there is no law. And your president is a dictator.

This particular signing statement isn't an interpretation of a law that was recently passed. It is regarding one that has been in effect for sometime. A couple things should be especially alarming about this issue, besides the fact that it is clearly a violation of personal privacy. First, of course Bush will say that in certain situations, like when suspected Anthrax is in a letter, the gov't needs to be able to protect lives and be able to check it out. Well, obviously if there is a suspected checmical agent or other harmful thing in a letter, we aren't so moronic as to not have a way of protecting ourselves. And no judge is going to deny a warrant to protect civilians. So, get a warrant, and a few hours wait is, to me, a fair price to pay for protecting my 4th ammendment right to illegal search and seizure. I can wait another day for a letter.

We do not have to give up our right for safety Blueblaze, we have methods and laws already in effect to protect us against such an act as opening mail. Think about it. If the postal service or anyone else has reason to believe that there is a bomb in a box, don't you think that a warrant could be received and it checked out just to make sure? Do we really need to bypass such a simple step? It is going to take a while to get bomb squad or whoever to be there, a warrant will come faster, no time will be saved, and whats a day or a week anyways. What WILL happen if you accept Bushes signing statement is that people will begin to not need as big a reason to open mail. They won't need probable cause, they just might need to be a little curious. You have warrants so judges balance the power of the police, its always better to have 2 people give the go-ahead then just one person; less mistakes will always occur with oversight.

The 2nd thing to worry about is loss of balanced governent. One thing that has kept America's government from becoming too powerful, while maintaing power for the people, is the balance of governmental branches. The executive, juduciary and legislative branches are each supposed to have a part and say in the laws and enforcement of those laws. With this signing statement, should it be enforced (and if it isn't going to be enforced, why was it made and why are we talking about it) it has given the executive branch more of the other branches powers. Any time the president wants to do something, he doesn't need to convince 2/3 of the legislative branch to amend or pass a bill as was orignally intended, he can just have his lawyers whip up a signing statement. Although he wrote this one on Dec. 20, FOX news and friends didn't tell us about it (if they knew) and we were only able to find out after Senator Feingold wrote his letter. In effect, President Bush has bypassed the legislative branch with a secret law of his own. No one voted on the signing statement, it isn't in any way nor was it ever intended to be a lawfully abiding document, but now it is being treated as one.

[Blueblaze]

That may be how you feel, but the way I see it is that the govt. has no right to look into my affairs. When they begin to invade my personal security, I have an issue. There's a major difference between opening my bills, and opening a ticking package.

Besides that, it's little baby steps like these that eventually lead to totalitarian regimes. Of course, when someone suggests something like this, everyone calls them paranoid, but under Bush's rule, there have been quite a few violations of American rights. If these continue, then before we know it, we will be living in 1984.

I don't know about you specifically, but its funny how people will get all mad whenever the government does something that goes into their private affairs, but they want the government to give them free healthcare, free college grants, free food, free land, free insurance, free, etc... you get the point. As well, you get free police, hospital, fire, military, etc.. Obviously you have to pay taxes for it, but I think that is worth it rather than you actually having to manage every single possible thing. If you had a heart attack or stroke, you would be soley responsible to help yourself out, couldn't go to or use the hospital. The point is, since people want the government to be so involved in being responsible for your needs and desires, then you have to give up freedoms, such as, having absolute complete privacy with your mail. For me, thats a small price to pay knowing that I've got a quarter million troops defending us just incase China wants to send over their army, or some other nation wants to try and bomb us. When you ask the government to be this involved in your life, you lose some rights. It works the same way just like someone living under your parents house, since they provide shelter, food, etc.. for you, you lose some of your rights (if they are good parents anyway). If I was providing shelter, food, clothing, etc... for my child, I wouldn't let them smoke pot or drink beer or carry weapons, they lose that right, because they are being provided things by me. You win some, you lose some. Thats what you get for presidents like FDR socializing America.

[Vatican Assassin]

I don't know about you specifically, but its funny how people will get all mad whenever the government does something that goes into their private affairs, but they want the government to give them free healthcare, free college grants, free food, free land, free insurance, free, etc... you get the point. As well, you get free police, hospital, fire, military, etc.. Obviously you have to pay taxes for it, but I think that is worth it rather than you actually having to manage every single possible thing. If you had a heart attack or stroke, you would be soley responsible to help yourself out, couldn't go to or use the hospital. The point is, since people want the government to be so involved in being responsible for your needs and desires, then you have to give up freedoms, such as, having absolute complete privacy with your mail. For me, thats a small price to pay knowing that I've got a quarter million troops defending us just incase China wants to send over their army, or some other nation wants to try and bomb us. When you ask the government to be this involved in your life, you lose some rights. It works the same way just like someone living under your parents house, since they provide shelter, food, etc.. for you, you lose some of your rights (if they are good parents anyway). If I was providing shelter, food, clothing, etc... for my child, I wouldn't let them smoke pot or drink beer or carry weapons, they lose that right, because they are being provided things by me. You win some, you lose some. Thats what you get for presidents like FDR socializing America.

Man, I don't want to be argumentative Blueblaze, but I really need to clear some things up for you. Your first assumption is that everyone who gets mad at our loss of rights is asking the gov't for freebies. I don't know these people. We get "free police, hospital, fire, military" but we have to pay taxes for them? That kind of makes them, well, not free. And I don't know anyone who is asking the gov't for "free healthcare, free college grants, free food, free land, free insurance" there certainly isn't a great debate for the gov't giveaway you seem to be hearing about. Healthcare is becoming privatized, welfare is too, and free college grants? From this gov't? No one I know struck that deal. Free food and free land? You have heard of people whining for free food and land? Um, ok. Free insurance? What are all those insurance companies taking all my money for, then?

Everything the gov't does do for us is inevitably paid for by us, thats what taxes are. So when you say you think the gov't is "responsible for your needs and desires", well yes, thats why governments are created, right? Thats why 35-40% of my paycheck goes to taxes, which doesn't count property tax, sales tax, state tax or toll bridges or all the other taxes. I can't think of anything I would want my money to go toward more than my own health coverage. But I don't get it.

That all aside, I'm boggling at the thought process that leads you to think that because I pay for all those "free" things with taxes, that I should "lose some rights". This definately requires some more explanation, because in this country, it has never been a given or accepted. The constitution was created for the sole purpose of denying the loss of rights. The fact that the gov't is involved in my life (how couldn't it be?) doesn't quite convince me that I should "lose some right". Your big daddy analogy doesn't apply. If you pay rent (taxes) then you get privacy. The gov't doesn't own house America. It was created by us and is composed of us. In America you do NOT lose rights, you DO get absolute privacy, and you do NOT want the gov't to be overly involved in your life, you ARE the gov't. We the People, remember? It's not some seperate entity providing all those things you listed, YOU provide them to yourself through taxes and service. And you don't look through your children's mail.