W pushes envelope on U.S. spying

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html


according to a story in todays NY daily news, bush put another of his signing statements on a law which directly contradicts the law. he claims the government can open your mail without a warrant.


these are the type of things that need to be investigated. Are these signing statements impeachable offenses? (remember that the signing statements have been used since james madison) should the first step be to challenge these signing statements in the courts and have them overturned?


this is why we need to investigate, get a committee going to do so. one with subpoena powers.

--Henry Stimson

Here's another one from a quaint old document:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ."

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It was a facetious reference. Specifically, Stimson was referring to the shutdown of a codebreaking office (sometimes called The Black Chamber) led by American cryptology expert Herbert Yardley.

Yardley, in turn, wrote a tell-all book about his successful decryption of Japanese messages during the Washington Naval Conference of 1921. It cleverly skirted disclosure laws of the time, and ticked off people from the State Department all the way to Tokyo.

The irony of the quote is that less than ten years after Yardley's book, the United States was again reading Japanese diplomatic messages, notably on the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Henry Stimson, as Secretary of War, was in charge of the Signals Intelligence Service which broke the codes.

Thus, Henry Stimson was not a gentleman, either. Stimson didn't say it, but a more accurate quotation might be "gentlemen do not read each other's mail... but Americans do."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah.... but where are the gentlemen in this case?

investigated first thing.

More importantly, they need to quash the notion that *cos going to plow ahead with his agenda. And, they need to get VERY PUBLIC about all the damage that this admin has brought. The public does'nt know half of what they have put in place and undone.

I say we get them convicted too, of aiding and abetting the Traitor In Chief. How the bloody hell can Pelosi and the rest let the Junta get away with this, and still call themselves loyal Americans?

but remember when he said "I don't want anyone reading my stuff" what a hypocrite.

Why in the hell do we have to hear about this stuff though the NY daily news not that i don't give them a lot of credit. This should be all over the news! The American people need to wake the hell up and stop rolling over and our Dem's that we voted in should be screaming from the top of their lungs on every radio and TV new station. I am not going to roll over anymore I call my Senators and Congress.

:shrug: :banghead:

Ten bucks says this has nothing to do with homeland security and everything to do with helping his friends in pharma stop the flow of cheap drugs from Canada.

My first reaction is that Bush is an ass, but then I ask myself... what is the court precedent?

There must be one that says a warrant is needed, right?

said that a warrant was needed to open mail. his signing statement then countermanded the statement.

of signing statements or Executive Orders that directly contradict legislation.

I guess if an EO had something to do w/ his role in commanding the military, but beyond that, how did it come to be that any President could just sign away a law he doesn't like?

What is the legal precendent for that?

Signing statements have typically been used for adding comments to the law being signed that did nothing to change its meaning, such as notes on how to go about enforcing it. While there may not be "legal" precedent, there are relatively rare occasions of past presidents when they have included language in their signing statements to the effect that they would not be enforcing part of the law they are signing, but the Bush administration has taken these to vast and unheard of levels.

The phenomenon of "signing statements" that challenge bills passed by Congress have never met judicial review as far as I know, but I think it's clear that they are patently unconstitutional, for it completely strips Congress of the power to write laws, which is afforded to them exclusively in the Constitution. If the president can change or ignore a law when signing it, it is actually vastly more powerful than a veto because the president does not need to negotiate with Congress for a law closer to what they want, but instead they can essentially write whatever law they want and sign it themselves, with Congressional bills being little more than suggestions for the president to consider.

Pretty good article from when this issue first made news:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

long before Gonzales was made AG. The EO that sealed Reagan's Presidential papers (due to be made public according to the 1978 Presidential Records Act) for one.

Alberto R. Gonzales (born August 4, 1955) is the 80th and current Attorney General of the United States, becoming the first Hispanic to serve in the position. He formerly served under U.S. President George W. Bush as White House Counsel, and prior to that had been appointed by Bush to the Texas Supreme Court.

Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.

But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.

Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

presidents have used signing statements for various reasons. no president before * has used them as often and to the extent that he has. it is a bit of a murky area.


step 1 is to get the supreme court to declare them illegal or unconstitutional. then we can take the next step if he still tries to use them.

a warrant is REQUIRED!

but yet we have court cases about school prayer.

I'm not disagreeing that there should be a warrant, I'm just looking for something that we can use to back us up when we make that argument.

the Constitution is quite clear. We should hammer on that point over and over until we make their ears bleed.

Have there been any laws (about the government opening private mail) that have been deemed "unconstitutional" because of the Fourth Amendment?

I'm very clear on the Fourth Amendment. It has been the case in the history of our country though, that laws have been enacted that are contrary to the Constitution, and those laws have been challenged, and then struck down because of their unconsitutionality. I am looking for such an instance.

Bush is prepared to ignore ANY law, up to and including the Constitution. If people on the Right refuse to concede that point, not other law matters.

This is an impeachable offense. Get on the ball, already.

other presidents have used signing statements (not to the extent of * but they have used them) so is using a signing statement an impeachable offense?

We impeached Andrew Johnson for far less than this coked-up fratboy has done.

what i mean is if we try to impeach bush on signing statements, we first have to prove that signing statements are illegal. that is a difficult step. if we can prove that, then we can take the next step towards impeachment. but if they are legal, then we cannot impeach him on them.

As much legal force as a DU post.

(Cross-post from another thread on same topic)


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html">Bush pushes envelope on US spying, January 4, 2006


AG Gonzales, 2-6-06: Declines to answer first-class mail breach question


Go get 'em, Chairman Leahy.


So what's good for the goose is not also good for the gander...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/seafan/93"> Bush, 2005: 'I don't want you reading my personal stuff.'

A bit much don't you think?

It is one thing for him to say he can open your mail, it's another to find somebody willing to open you mail without a Court Order. :shurg:

Either that, or he's done it to create another distraction because something monstrous is in the works and he wants to divert attention.

Number 1 villain.

:evilgrin:

Any mail critical of bush should be to him, about him, and sent to him.

to reflect actual title of the article:
W pushes envelope on U.S. spying

Thanks in advance :)

"Stealing People's Mail"
By The Dead Kennedys

We ain't going to the party
We ain't going to the game
We ain't going to the disco
Ain't gonna cruise down main

We're stealing people's mail
stealing people's mail
stealing people's mail
On a friday night

Drivin' in the mountains
Winding 'round and 'round
Rummage thru your mailboxes
Take your mail back to town

And we got license plates, wedding gifts, tax returns
Checks to politicians from real estate firms
Money, bills and cancelled checks
Pretty funny pictures of your kids

We're gonna steal your mail
On a Friday night
We're gonna steal your mail
By the pale moonlight

We got grocery sackful after grocery sackful
After grocery sackful after grocery sackful
After grocery sackful after grocery sackful
Of the private lives of you
Ha Ha

People say that we're crazy
We're sick and all alone
But when we read your letters
We're rolling on the floor

We got more license plates, wedding gifts, tax returns
Checks to politicians from real estate firms
Money, bills and cancelled checks
We cut relationships with your friends

We're gonna steal your mail
On a Friday night
We're gonna steal your mail
By the pale moonlight

We better not get caught
We'll be dumped in institutions
Where we'll be drugged and shocked
'Til we come out born-again Christians

save the government a step in their spying surveillance for the war on Americans....err..terror.

What diff between "Decider" and "Dictator"?

I now firmly believe that Hitler has been reincarnated by the name of G.W. Bush! Everything is being taken away!:mad:

does that mean I can open dimwad's mail?

If I get everyone to know and refer me as Government I wouldn't have to legally change my name.

because we all know this doesn't have a damned thing to do with terrorist threats.

He just slipped this signing statement in to give some cover once Democrats find out about it.

stopped.

Love the headline.

I'd suspect it would require a dozen US marshals and as many crowbars.

.......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.

Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It 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.

anything!

that allows the president to override the intent of Congress and the meaning of the legislation they passed . . . if he tries it, he'll be acting illegally -- which is, of course, nothing out of the ordinary for Bush and his cronies . . . it's what they DO . . .

it has to be proven first that a signing statement is illegal/a felony. there is no law against them. nor any law allowing them.

a law/signing statement says the opposite. remember tampering with the mail is a law. so it can be changed.


i dont agree with changing it, just pointing out that it can be.

by a signing statement.

Condider the (lying, deceitful, devious) source.

against the constitution.

It's also an embarassement to have a president that would do something so totalitarian.

There's a lot more than just the mail-opening. The signing statement changes over 12 provisions in the Act, and cites the imaginary "unitary executive branch" four times.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html

However, ACTING on signing statements that contradict the underlying laws might well be.

this is how he will operate until his power is stripped from him by congress or term limit.



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- antibush prodem stickers/shirts

Bush quietly authorizes opening of Americans' mail


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16380470.htm

WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York 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.
-snip-
Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.
But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.
Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

On the minus side, if the mail system was privatized, there'd be no easy way to screen letters this way.

Expect postage stamp prices to go up 7 cents each.

will be late and more late fees can be charged.

every day is "an emergency".

Police State. Given that he won't actually do it himself then if you thought you hadn't got the Gestapo before you've sure got them now.

Mark my words, everything I recieved from the Center on Concious and War from Washington was delivered opened and resealed by "USPS" tape. This immediately followed my discharge from the military, so coincidence it certainly was not.

The people of the year are making sure of that. LOL.

Bush and his ilk are building the office of Dictator, much as described by Machiavelli.

he'll step down when his term is over?

that intelligence will have some Dem. oversight with the new Congress. Bush will still do what he wants, so the Democrats must still call him on stuff.

He has no recognition of his executive powers having any limits. Investigate this indeed!

They tried to punt it to my Congressman, but I told them that wouldn't work (though I am going to call him). How do we unenact this stuff?

nt

If he violates a federal statute that he signs, it's an impeachable offense, and it's Congresses DUTY to draw up the articles. Period.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/s3731.html

(snip)

#8. As recently explained in the Harvard Law Review, Congress has power to resolve judicial disputes such as this by enacting Federal rules of statutory interpretation. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 2085 (2002). This power flows from Article I, section 8, cl. 18, which gives Congress the power `To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof'. Federal rules of statutory interpretation are necessary and proper to bring into execution the legislative power.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:UjYiwcIlscUJ:www.abanet.org/adminlaw/conference/2006/handouts/signing.pdf+%23+As+recently+explained+in+the+Harvard+Law+Review,+Congress+has+power+to+resolve+judicial+disputes+such+as+this+by+enacting+Federal+rules+of+statutory+interpretation.+Nicholas+Quinn+Rosenkranz,+Federal+Rules+of+Statutory+Interpretation,+115+Harv.+L.+Rev.&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

W pushes envelope on U.S. spying

New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail

"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 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.

"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.

"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."

http://nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html