George Bush Wants your Mail Read

**hawkeye_pierce_mf** · January 8th, 2007, 07:11 PM

Boy, am I unhappy.

Is the Bush Administration Reading Your Mail?
Full Coverage: The Imperial Presidency and the Unitary Executive Theory | Big Brother is Watching

Bush Signing Legislation
Image courtesy of the U.S. Department of State.
Every recent president has made signing statements, but the Bush administration has raised it to an art form. U.S. Politics Guide Kathy Gill writes about President Bush's signing statement on the new Postal Accountability and Enforcement Act (H.R. 6407), where the president simultaneously signed a bill preventing warrantless review of mail and attached a signing statement stating that he would conduct searches in violation of the law "in exigent circumstances."

So what exactly does "exigent" mean? There are two ways to read the signing statement: One an acknowledgment of the "ticking bomb" scenario in which we would expect a member of the executive branch to intervene, even in violation of law, in the event of a truly imminent and catastrophic threat. But the other rests in the fact that the word "exigent," taken by itself, is a matter of perspective. Sweepstakes entries frequently have exigent messages on them--"Open this envelope within the next six hours and you could win five million dollars!" You can't spend much time at a coffee shop without hearing somebody make an exigent demand for a triple latte, decaf, no foam. Sometimes my dog has an exigent need to go out at three in the morning. (It doesn't get much more exigent than that, does it?) The point is that "exigent" means pretty much whatever the Bush administration wants it to mean. Words like "dire," "deadly," and even "necessary" are left by the wayside; in their place, we get "exigent." I find this interesting.

So does John C. Dvorak, who writes:

What? Are we living in a Gulag where everything is scrutinized, censored, examined? This is horrible.This is the fastest way to build a dossier on anyone.

But the thing about signing statements is that they're statements of executive intent with no legislative merit. They have about the same amount of binding authority as the weekly radio address. So is it really sensible to read "exigent" as a new standard? My colleague Robert Longley suggests that this whole exigency business isn't quite as dramatic as it might first appear:

I really don?t get the need for the signing statement, unless Bush thought the wording of the Act somehow negated the long-standing authority of postal officials to immediately open and inspect "ticking" mail, and get a warrant afterwards. Doing so is just common sense and no act of Congress or president is going to change it.

If the fear is that he?ll use the signing statement to initiate the willy-nilly opening of domestic letters under the war on terror mandate, forget it. There is no way the postal service can take the time to screen regular mail against any list of suspected terrorists ? or political enemies. That would be far easier to do with email, which is of course, a whole other concern.

This leaves us with the distinct possibility that this is just political posturing--a way for Bush to tick off civil libertarians, and make himself appear to be "tough on terror" as the result of any subsequent controversy.

Links:http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...mail_fraud.htm

Friday, January 05, 2007

White House defends signing statement attached to postal reform bill
Jeannie Shawl at 8:34 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The White House has defended President Bush's attachment of a signing statement [text] to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act [PDF text; HR 6407 summary], dismissing arguments that the statement changes administration policy on when mail can be opened without a warrant. Bush signed the law in late December and attached a statement, which said in part:

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.

Privacy advocates have expressed concern [ACLU press release] that "the Administration's warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and Internet communications extends to the U.S. mail." The ACLU has said that it will file a Freedom of Information Act [text; DOJ materials] request for information on "the number of times this power has been used, whether people who are searched are notified after the fact, and what policies are being put in place to conduct the searches."

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow defended the signing statement in a press briefing [transcript] Wednesday:

...there is nothing new here. What the President is arguing -- what the signing statement indicates is what present law allows, and making it clear what the provisions are within present law in terms of dealing with some of these items....

Q But what's new is the need for physical searches specifically authorized by foreign intelligence collection. And people we've talked to say there is no law that specifically deals with that aspect. So I'm wondering if the President views his executive power as he did in the -- I'll use your words -- terrorist surveillance program is the same here when it comes to mail in the United States?

MR. SNOW: Again, it says "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection." What the experts seem to have bracketed out is the specifically authorized by law as it applies to that provision. All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for -- in exigent circumstances for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in the law. This is not new. It is not as was described in one paper a "sweeping new power" by the President. It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the President of the United States.

The Postal Service also issued a statement [text] Wednesday noting that "The President is not exerting any new authority," and that nothing in the new law changes the "longstanding practice" of protecting mail from "unreasonable search and seizure when in postal custody." AP has more.

Bush has come under fire for "misusing" bill signing statements [1993 DOJ backgrounder; JURIST news archive] to bypass particular provisions of a bill that the president considers unconstitutional or a risk to national security. The American Bar Association approved a resolution condemning Bush's signing statement practices [JURIST report] last year and Republican Senator Arlen Specter (PA), then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill [JURIST report] last summer that would give Congress the power to challenge presidential signing statements. The Boston Globe and other papers have reported that Bush has added statements to some 750 bills [Boston Globe report] since the outset of his presidency but the US Department of Justice has said that Bush's frequent use of signing statements is not abnormal [JURIST report].

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturd.../070108b.shtml
Government: Out of our mail

Monday, January 8, 2007

* Printable Version
* Email This Article

Opinion

.Main Opinion Page
.Chronicle Sunday Insight
.Chronicle Campaigns

SF Chronicle Submissions
.Letters to the Editor
.Open Forum
.Sunday Insight

IN YET another power grab that whittles away our rights without a plausible justification, President Bush has given the government expanded authority to read our mail.

This White House has long signaled that it will do what it wants in the name of national security, laws be damned. It has reserved the government's right to detain and even torture suspects without due process, and has asserted for itself wide latitude to electronically eavesdrop on Americans without obtaining search warrants.

So perhaps it should surprise no one that Bush would add a "signing statement" to a postal-reform bill passed by Congress that suggests the new law allows the opening of mail that would be "otherwise sealed against inspection" for broadly defined security purposes.

Once again, the White House attempted to downplay the significance of a signing statement, insisting the president was not trying to exert any new authority. Instead, the Bush spinners said the purpose of the signing statement was to reiterate current law, which clearly does allow postal authorities to open a package suspected of containing a ticking time bomb -- the example of choice for those trying to pooh-pooh the concerns. Also, before the administration tries to trot out a red herring about wanting to intercept "letters from al Qaeda" without delay, it has every opportunity to do so under current law -- and could then apply for a warrant after the fact.

Bush has added hundreds of similarly substantive "signing statements" to legislation he has approved during his presidency. Some of his statements have unilaterally weakened, or in some cases even overturned, the intent of a bill passed by Congress. His signing statements have tempered congressional attempts to outlaw torture, limit political meddling in scientific research, protect whistle-blowers and recruit women and minorities into the intelligence services.

Before Bush took office, presidential signing statements were relatively rare and mostly limited to expressions of how an administration planned to carry out the stated intent of Congress -- not significant changes in policy.

In this case, the signing statement appears to weaken the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act's reiteration of basic protections of first-class mail from searches without court approval.

If the Bush administration believes those protections are excessive in this era of terrorism -- a highly dubious argument, considering the latitude in the law to inspect packages of suspicious nature or origin -- then it had every opportunity to raise its concerns and to propose modifications while the bill was being aired on Capitol Hill.

"Just trust us," seems to be the operative phrase of this administration.

However, history has shown the potential for government abuses in the absence of strong mail-privacy laws. Bush continues to roll back the clock -- and the Constitution -- with his signing statements.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DGRTNDNES1.DTL
Oh, and the Torture Ban does not apply to Bush Either:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...w_torture_ban/

**SouthwestRanger** · January 8th, 2007, 09:59 PM

I urge everyone to sign!

There is a growing social movement now: The anti-war movement. Though it has its blueprints in the 1960's during the Vietnam War, who can possibly say they were wrong in the 1960's? Most American now view the Vietnam war as a "grand mistake of grand proportions" costing 58,000 American lives and millions of South Korean lives. We lost that war. Just like we're losing now. Let's look at the parallels: Guerilla warfare in Vietnam, sectarian warfare in Iraq. Escalation of violence during American occupation of Korea, escalation of violence during occupation of Iraq. Growing public disapproval of Vietnam War after four years, growing public disapproval of Iraq War after three years (oh wow, one year earlier). We lost the Vietnam War because the Red Scare was rampant in the United States, fears of the "spread of communism", and other anti-dissent politics (Senator Joe McCarthy).

please sign!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1168289852

**GlamUK73** · January 9th, 2007, 01:25 PM

Although I am not an American citizen, since US and UK administrations have been very close on this 'war on terror' deal, I hope you won't mind my ironical comment:

..oh what a wonderful world.....

Privacy is a further word suffering the consequence of mass contradictions. Just like the term Freedom.

Oh dear dear....where's the way out in all this?

Kind regards,

Lory
x

**IrishMick** · January 9th, 2007, 02:05 PM

I am thoroughly and unabashedly disgusted, and yet, not surprised at all. They can already access books we check out at the library, movies we rent, our last physical, and the web sites we visit, all in the name of "patriot act".

[img]graemlins/grrr.gif[/img]

Mohandas Gandhi said "The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart."

**gus danger** · January 9th, 2007, 04:10 PM

<marquee> [img]graemlins/sheep.gif[/img] ___ [img]graemlins/sheep.gif[/img] ___ [img]graemlins/sheep.gif[/img] ___ [img]graemlins/sheep.gif[/img] ___ unitedstates

</marquee>
[img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img]
Gus

**SouthwestRanger** · January 9th, 2007, 06:44 PM

CBS: Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For ?Surge?

bush internets

A State Department official leaked word this week that President Bush is considering sending ?no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops? to Iraq. ?Instead of a surge, it is a bump,? the official said.

This claim was bolstered last night by CBS?s David Martin, who reported that military commanders have told Bush they are prepared to execute a troop escalation of just 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, ?with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S.?

Watch it:

The Washington Post reports today that ?deep divisions remain between the White House on one side and the Joint Chiefs and congressional leaders on the other about whether a surge of up to 20,000 troops will turn around the deteriorating situation.? The Post also provides more context about an administration official?s recent claim that the escalation is ?more of a political decision than a military one.?:

The U.S. military is increasingly resigned to the probability that Bush will deploy a relatively small number of additional troops ? between one and five brigades ? in part because he has few other dramatic options available to signal U.S. determination in Iraq, officials said. But the Joint Chiefs have not given up making the case that the potential dangers outweigh the benefits for several reasons, officials said.

Escalation backers have already begun distancing themselves from this plan. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said yesterday that not sending enough troops would be ?worse than doing nothing.?

Digg It!

Full transcript:

REPORTER: The president is expected to give his speech on a new way forward in Iraq next week. CBS?s David Martin has learned military commanders told the President they could execute a ?troop surge? of 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S. Two army brigades ? about 7,500 troops ? would go into Baghdad in an effort to control the violence, clearing neighborhoods and staying long enough for reconstruction projects to take effect. 1,500 Marines would go to the western province of al-Anbar, heartland of the Sunni insurgency. This, even though the Commandant of the Marine Corps was quoted as saying he did not see a need for more battalions. But aides say the President still hasn?t decided for sure on a plan.

TONY SNOW (CLIP): The President understands this is important and needs to be done right.

ANCHOR: And details for the President?s proposal on Iraq are still being hammered out, but Pentagon officials are sure the President will order more troops to Iraq.