Bush Claims Sweeping New Powers

“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.

Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.

"The [Bush] 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."

Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.

Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html
last edited: 1/05/07 4:17:44 PM”

“Bush has not claimed any new powers. All he has said is that he recognizes the exceptions to the search warrant requirement as enunciated in numerous Supreme Court decisions.”

“Now prosecutor, you know how violin enjoys twisting facts to meet his opinions.
LOL”

“Sick'em, George!

God Bless You, Mr. President!”

“If something is so damn important get a warrent. I don't like it at all.”

“He aint opening nobody's mail... Bush aint the first to try nor will he be the last.”

“Remember the brouhaha about the warrantless eavesdropping Vile went into a hissy fit over?

This is more of the same, screaming over nothing.

READ what this is about before y'all have your hissy fits.

Prosecutor nailed it.”

“the douchebag can open all the gawddamn credit card offers i get no problemo”

“im getting tired of getting papercuts. he can be my b!tch and open my mail for me”

“up is down
day is night
rush is right”

“"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."

Oh, we've seen this sort of thing before................Nixon.

Never say never...

Is Dumbya trying to get his ass impeached?

Any move away from democracy is a move toward disaster.”

“Dumbya has a pacemaker guarding his castle.”

“When the flag is displayed at a height on the flag poles equal to the percentage of voters, then the term,' democracy' will take on a -hole new meaning. Until that time be careful when that term is used to define (it). Yes, without some wind, alot of dirty flags would be in view.”

“That's right! If a president says it and the Supreme Court named and confirmed by the president's party agrees to it, then it must be virtuous and true and democratic and completely respectful of individual rights.

I suppose that's why abortion is illegal.”

“i don't see that the president said anything that was incorrect. he was just saying that he recognized that there were certain situations where he could open mail without a warrant. if you have a gripe take it up with the supreme court.”

“The Supreme Court has recognized many situations where the U.S. Constitution recongnizes many situations where "exigent circumstances" excuses obtaining a search warrant. Bush has just recongized those situations, nothing more. For example, if authorities had probable cause to believe that the first class mail contained a bomb, the bomb squad could open the mail without a warrant.”

“That's a nice example, prosecutor, but this is the same administration that looks at library files, monitors cell phone info., looks at credit card info. for those flying the friendly skies.

And it's the same administration that classifies absolutely everything that they do.

NO ONE has a problem with the bomb squad.

This is not about the bomb squad.

The ultimate problem, btw, is trust. I don't think that anyone trusts Bush with this kind of power. Maybe if he had used his previous extraconstitutional powers well, we'd think more kindly on this.

When did we stop being a free country?”

“The face value of the situation appears to one of another example of how our freedoms have been limited, by using terrorism as the driving reason.

The trouble with these kinds of actions, is that Americans see very little return for the restricts they have agreed to.

The claim of "well, there hasn't been a terrorist attack on this soil, because of these measures taken" is faulty. The supposed "terrorist/s among us" could in fact be laying in wait, not activated, has been killed in car accident, committed suicide, or detained for an action not even related to their mission. None of these reasons have anything to do with the measures in place.

The effectiveness of these measures taken by this administration has had very little discussion. Why haven't the American people been at least aware of the confirmed successes of these measures?

IMHO, while there has not been an attack on this soil since the Anthrax situation right after 9/11, this does not mean these measures are actually working. It's not the supposed "MSM" responsibility to create a campaign for the Government; rather, it's the responsibility of the Government to develop it, shout it and parade it. My gut tells me that in these times of the Republican party sinking deeper into the crapper, news of the effectiveness of these measures would have prevented the Democrats from taking control of Congress. The Republicans have been checked by the people, because of corruption and ineffectiveness on the supposed "War on Terror".

I hope that this Administration isn't becoming paranoid like Nixon's did. There are very many similar situations between the two, which also give enforcement to the opposition voices.
last edited: 1/07/07 10:37:35 AM”

“Powers to spy on the citizens are usually used to maintain political power and not to protect the citizens.

That is what Nixon did in his paranoid world.

That sort of thing has been used with brutality in places like Argentina and Chile, to name but a few.

Nixon tried to punish those who campaigned against him as though campaigning against him was anti-American.

It is very much American to vote people in or out of office.”

“Since 9-11, terrorists have increased their efforts in the United States. The U.S. government has sustained hundreds of terror related convictions since 9-11-01. Those coonvictions have been made possible by the Patriot Act, and by how President Bush has properly interpreted the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution. I have not been subject to a single violation of my Constitutional Rights by the Bush Administration. I do not know of a single individual who has had his Constitutional Rights violated by the Bush Administration. I do know that the Administration has killed or captured over 3/4 of al Qaeda leadership, and has killed or captured tens of thousands of terrorists in the middle east. Thank you President Bush for keeping us safe, and not violating our Constitutional Rights. America is safer.”

“WELL SAID, I AGREE. Thanks Mr President. At least you got balls to make a decision and stick to it.”

“We've also had to release hundreds of terrorists because we've taken them out of the criminal justice system.

Evidence obtained outside of constitutional avenues is inadmissable in court. We can't use confessions obtained through torture. We can't convict people we've jailed without a speedy trial.

So, we release them back to their home countries and they walk the streets. And these people have gone on to continue their terrorist ways.

It is in this administration's best interests to release as much information as possible so that we can see the effectiveness of their methods.

In the absence of this kind of information release, we can only come to the conclusion that the war on terrorism is failing and the Republicans are hiding their failures behind a wall of secrecy.

Put up or shut up.”

“http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aI7bO0ogT2NE&refer=germany

That's the link in which the Bush administration admits that 15 of its former Guantanamo detainees have been released and then resumed killing Americans.

Wouldn't it have been better if we had tried the "Bush 15" in a court of law, thrown them into supermax and thrown away the key.

But, no, none of the evidence is admissable.”

“I don't like it any time the government says, "This is for your own good.". To say it never leads to the erosion of more freedom is just foolish. It never leads to more freedom does it?”

“http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/090204/sta_overturn001.shtml

Here's a nice little article on one of Bush's "terror" convictions.

If our great leader Bush says someone is a terrorist, then he MUST be a terrorist.”

“Good reading ,thank you all, but could someone tell me why terrorist hate us? Oh, I guess I shouldn't ask for honesty, but will.”

“they hate us because we are free”

“"Good reading ,thank you all, but could someone tell me why terrorist hate us?"

There is no "one reason". Looking at the history of the region, and US involvement in that history and region, will answer your question.”

“Our history in the region is relatively short isn't it? I mean the Eurose have a hell of a lot more to answer for in that region than we do. Except for our support of Israel which Europe clear does not do much of.”

“they hate us because we are free”

“"Our history in the region is relatively short isn't it? I mean the Eurose have a hell of a lot more to answer for in that region than we do."

Yes, our involvement in the history of the region is short; however, amount of time is not really the issue. The creation of Israel and the US/west support of it, the 1959 coup in Iran, our support of Saddam against Iran during the 80's and our abandoning of Osama after the Soviets were driven out of Afgani are just a few examples of how our short involvement in the region could stir up animosity against us.”

“I actually agree that the Europeans are cowards on this issue. We don't have Muslims burning cars in the streets.

And the 911 bombers were based in Germany.

But Bush didn't exactly drive a hard bargain with the Europeans. He just decided to go to war. Why go to war when someone else is going to do it for you?

It's going to be difficult to completely stop one-off terrorists from entering the country. We've done SOME good things on that account. Of course, we've also given up on monitoring who leaves the United States because of budgetary concerns.

The real danger is that we end up with an indigenous Muslim community that harbors terrorists.

That, my friends, is NOT a danger. Our society accepts Muslims and they are, on average, wealthier and more successful than the overall population.

So, I am very optimistic that we can limit the danger of terrorism within the borders of the United States.

Of course, if I were a terrorist, I'd go completely quiet right now. Why do anything when your enemy is self-destructing?”

“That, BTW, is the great crime in all of this.

The terrorists have achieved some great strategic victories since 911.”

“Yes, our involvement in the history of the region is short; however, amount of time is not really the issue. The creation of Israel and the US/west support of it, the 1959 coup in Iran, our support of Saddam against Iran during the 80's and our abandoning of Osama after the Soviets were driven out of Afgani are just a few examples of how our short involvement in the region could stir up animosity against us.

All true. But so is the amount of cash we bring to the region in the form of consumerism and aid and arms. In my mind it's the Israel factor the most which largely is dependent upon the general lack of freedoms mixed with a seriously fuked up form of Islam which is used as much for politics as it is for faith.

The boldness of Iran combined with the milquetoast attitudes of America will be our undoing in the region.”

“I think that Iran is a classic containment situation.

There was a recent report that said Iran's oil infrastructure is so bad that it won't even provide for domestic needs in the near future.

So, Iranian politicians rant and rave about the U.S. because it helps them cover their asses at home.

During the last parliamentary elections, the Iranian president lost pretty handily.

If we contain Iran, it will destroy itself from within.”

“A new law mow providis for military tribunals for terrorists being held at Guantanamo. No more releases. Military tribunals that meet legal requirements. Sounds good to me.


AS to Iran, Israel is praticing a tactical nuclear strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranian violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty might soon be settled conclusively”

“"But so is the amount of cash we bring to the region in the form of consumerism and aid and arms."

One thing must be remembered: Any amount of US cash in these areas (which I am not aware of how much the dollar figure is), is spun before the masses by the Imans has "westernization corruption of our culture". I would agree that Israel is the common rallying point for today's islamic radicals; I also believe it is the aggregate of past dabbling by our country that has laid the foundation for their rhetoric. Israel serves to perpetuates the situation presently.”

“The Israel issue is pretty irrelevant because it will never end. The Jews in the sea is the only thing that will end it for the Muslim nations.”

“Prosecutor, I do think that the military tribunals are better than the alternative - release.

But, it remains to be seen if these tribunals will stand constitutionally. Time will tell.

We do have a criminal justice system that could also be used. I think trials in open court are the BEST option because: 1) There is no question about their fairness. 2) They ensure that a Supreme Court in the future is not going to overturn the convictions en masse due to constitutionality. 3) Americans will be able to assess the progress of the war on terror and vote accordingly.

The American people are the final decision-makers in terms of the war on terror. We need information in order to make correct decisions.

I think that a policy of openness will actually increase support for anti-terror policies. Openness could help Bush and the Republicans. The feeling that many Americans have that they are hiding something actually hurts them.

Of course, they might actually be hiding something. In that case, keep everything secret, right?”

“Every crisis manager in the world will tell you to stand in front of the media and speak honestly and openly about past mistakes. It innoculates you.

We live in a confessional society.

So I am hoping that the Republicans will continue heading down this road of secrecy and obfuscation.

Nothing will bring down the fantasy world of the conservatives more quickly than this kind of stonewalling.

We did have a 2006 election, didn't we?”

“All you Chicken Littles learned nothing from the so called warrantless eavesdropping hissy fits y'all threw a few months ago.

You were wrong then, and now.”

“And you Licken Chittles learned nothing from Nov.6,2006.

You, like the CL's, never learn now, or then.”

“President Johnson and President Roosevelt both used military tribunals that withheld scrutiny. The courts said that military tribunals would be okay for terrorists if only congress would enact such a law. Well Congress did enact such a law. Military tribunals could give sufficient Constitutional protections without jeopardizing the disclosure of our secrets and informants. Why would anyone want to give foreign terrorists captured in batttle against our troops jury trials in American courts? The Constitution does not require that, and no country in the world does that or has ever tried that. It is a ludicrious idea.”

“Why does violin and his type hate America and love terrorists?”

“From President Bush's Thanksgiving address:

"At this time of great promise for America, we are grateful for the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution ..."

...except for the ones about privacy, having your day in court, separation of church and state -- you know, the Democrat parts.”

“I don't understand why we should give Constitutional rights/protections to non-citizens believed to be terrorists. To hell with them. I guarantee if we kill them they won't commit any more acts against us.

Oderint dum Metuant.”