Mail tampering I say!

[Baltar]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/04/bus...l.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A signing statement attached to postal legislation by President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant.

The White House denies any change in policy.

The law requires government agents to get warrants to open first-class letters.

But when he signed the postal reform act, Bush added a statement saying that his administration would construe that provision "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."

"The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress," said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What is the purpose of the signing statement if it isn't that?"

She said the group is planning to file request for information on how this exception will be used.

The ACLU also wants to know if it has already been used to open mail.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there was nothing new in the signing statement.

In his daily briefing Snow said: "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 law, this is not new."

Postal Vice President Tom Day added: "As has been the long-standing practice, first class mail is protected from unreasonable search and seizure when in postal custody. Nothing in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act changes this protection. The president is not exerting any new authority."

However, New York Democratic Sen. Charles E. Schumer criticized Bush's action.

"Every American wants foolproof protection against terrorism. But history has shown it can and should be done within the confines of the Constitution," said Schumer.

"This last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law is the exact type of maneuver that voters so resoundingly rejected in November."

The ACLU's Beeson noted that there has been an exception allowing postal inspectors to open items they believe might contain a bomb.

"His signing statement uses language that's broader than that exception," she said.

Bush uses the phrase exigent circumstances: "The question is what does that mean and why has he suddenly putting this in writing if this isn't a change in policy," she said.

In addition to suspecting a bomb or getting a warrant, the law allows postal officials to open letters that can't be delivered as addressed -- but only to determine if they can find a correct address or a return address.

Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association.

Typically, presidents have used signing statements for such purposes as instructing executive agencies how to carry out new laws.

Bush's statements often reserve the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.

"That non-veto hamstrings Congress because Congress cannot respond to a signing statement," ABA president Michael Greco has said.

The practice, he added, "is harming the separation of powers."

The president's action was first reported by the New York Daily News.

The full signing statement said:

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404© 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

[Anime Gee]

Now how the fuck am I supposed to send pr0n, booze, & money through the mail now? ( >o<)/

[Ceraziefish]

This is incredibly dumb.

If people haven't realized that he's invading our privacy yet, I don't know when they will.

[Samurai Drifter]

Being the richest and most prosperous nation in the world also means that we're the prime target for exploitation by a government with the resources to exact utter control over its people.

I'm glad a Republican president will probably not win in '08. If they did, I would be very seriously worried about what the next steps would be.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Anyone touches my mail I was excersize my constitutional right to put a fucking hole though their head with a .50 cal

[Satan]

Being the richest and most prosperous nation in the world also means that we're the prime target for exploitation by a government with the resources to exact utter control over its people.

I'm glad a Republican president will probably not win in '08. If they did, I would be very seriously worried about what the next steps would be.

because all republicans are evil and all dems are shining examples of ethics

Anyone touches my mail I was excersize my constitutional right to put a fucking hole though their head with a .50 cal

Where does the Constitution gurantee that right again?

[Poophy]

because all republicans are evil and all dems are shining examples of ethics

Where does the Constitution gurantee that right again?

Section 4, article B, you really need to read that thing closely…

[margot]

Frightening.

Oh well.

I know a girl who has family in the middle east and when she calls them her phone is always tapped.

[Ceraziefish]

Where does the Constitution gurantee that right again?

And verily, on the day of 12th August 1987, there shalt be a man born named Gundampilotspaz, and he shall have all rights to shoot whomsoever he sees fit with a .50 cal.

Holy shit, GPS's birthday is kinda close to mine (and separated by a year, but still).

[Belial]

Anyone touches my mail I was excersize my constitutional right to put a fucking hole though their head with a .50 cal

No you won't. You don't even own a firearm let alone a .50 Caliber Handgun.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Where does the Constitution gurantee that right again?

It's in there.... somewhere...

[darkon]

It's in there.... somewhere...

And it's open to interpretation.

[Baltar]

No you won't. You don't even own a firearm let alone a .50 Caliber Handgun.

I thought he was getting one mailed to him? That shouldn't be a problem.

[The Lone Magician]

Well crap, now I'll have to find some OTHER way to get my bombs, weapons, illegal drugs, etc.

[Samurai Drifter]

because all republicans are evil and all dems are shining examples of ethics

No, but their platform indicates that they're far more likely to be the first to curb personal freedoms in the names of their "moral" causes. And this is exactly what is happening.