Democrats Voice Concern On Mail-Opening Authority

[cal04]

Bush's 'Signing Statement' Seen as Stretching Law
President Bush signed a little-noticed statement last month asserting the authority to open U.S. mail without judicial warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases, prompting warnings yesterday from Democrats and privacy advocates that the administration is attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on its powers.

A "signing statement" attached to a postal reform bill on Dec. 20 says the Bush administration "shall construe" a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

(snip)
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, said the government has long been able to legally open mail believed to contain a bomb or other imminent threat. But authorities are generally required to seek a warrant from a criminal or special intelligence court in other cases, Martin and other experts said.

"The administration is playing games about warrants," Martin said. "If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?"

(snip)
The latest statement caused a small ruckus on Capitol Hill yesterday just as Democrats were taking control of Congress. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the statement a "last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010401702.html

[derby378]

1. Uh, helloooooo? Fourth Amendment violation here?!?

Someone wanna jump on this pretty damn pronto?

[Occulus]

4. The APWU needs to issue a position on this immediately.

I'm certain the American Postal Workers Union- of which Yours Truly is a member- has a thing or two to say about this. The Postal Inspection Service needs to do the same.

My personal public proclamation: I will not open your mail without being presented with a warrant to do so. I will not obey any order to do so unless and until I am presented with the same. And I will make public the names and positions of any postal personnel I know to have doneso without being presented with a warrant.

This stinks, and I'm not going to participate. Period.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. concern? it should provoke outrage

and immediate corrective actions

[msongs]

3. attention dems: acting on signing statements illegal. wake up, ok? nt

[potone]

5. This signing statement nonsense has to stop!

I hope the Democrats will do whatever is necessary, including court cases, to put to rest this pernicious notion that presidential signing statements are a valid part of the legislative history of a bill. The president is supposed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, not legislate or interpret them.
Aaaghhh!:banghead:

[AndyTiedye]

7. Only One Thing Will Stop Bush** From Issuing "Signing Statements"

Bush will stop issuing "signing statements" when he is IMPEACHED, CONVICTED, and FROG-MARCHED out of the White House.

[Vidar]

12. Absolutely rigtht.

[Tesha]

19. Actually, a nice court order, suitably enforced, would probably help. (NT)

[grahamhgreen]

6. "Stretching" the law?

How bout breaking the law - again. The guy is acting criminally and if he is not prosecuted by the dems, then they are indeed 'soft on crime'. And again the headline is complicit. What does the right to privacy in our papers mean, if not our mail?

[StrictlyRockers]

8. I would hope that they would do more than "voice concern".

How about passing some damn laws preventing this BS? Isn't that what we pay them for??

[silverojo]

9. K&R

People need to wake the f*ck up and realize how Bush is trampling all over their rights.

[cal04]

10. Attorney with American Civil Liberties planning to file for information

(snip)

"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?"

Beeson said the group is planning to file a request for information on how this exception will be used and to ask whether it has already been used to open mail.

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

(snip)
"His signing statement uses language that's broader than that exception," she said, and noted that Bush used the phrase "exigent circumstances."

more
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070105/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail

[crickets]

18. Good. Go ACLU. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Is this in the right forum? Shouldn't it be posted in Latests Law-Breaking News?

[Ezlivin]

15. Or the Impeachable Offenses forum

But that damned forum would get so long it'd threaten to crash the server!

[outofbounds]

13. There is no way this can be legal.

I am outraged that "*" would attempt such a privacy violation. Not surprised but outraged. Who the hell does he think he is. NSA wire taps now this. What's next video surveillance in every room of every home in America? Every automobile?

[struggle4progress]

14. At least one congressional committee should investigate domestic spying

[cascadiance]

16. This action should put impeachment back ON the table!

Come on Dems! You don't need a better excuse!

[crickets]

17. "The administration is playing games about warrants"

"If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?"

Probably to cover their rears for something they've already been doing, duh.