Is Bush Reading My Mail Now?

[shemp]

After having had a few, I'm reading this thread. If I understand correctly, we are now arguing over what sort of lingerie terrorists wear?

 

[TragicMonkey]

After having had a few, I'm reading this thread. If I understand correctly, we are now arguing over what sort of lingerie terrorists wear?

The more hardcore the terrorist, the frillier the undergarments. "An explosion rocked the banking district as a suicide bomber's bomb detonated early. No one was hurt, apart from injuries caused by falling lace and ribbon."

 

[Darth Rotor]

Which goes to show you shouldn't put all of your Basques in one exit.

Vile punster! I am just now done cleaning the coffee of of my keyboard.

DR

 

[TsarBomba]

Exigent Circumstances

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."

And this is big news how?

Right now, if the police have exigent circumstances to search your house, they can bust down your door without warning and storm into your house. The Unites States Supreme Court has long held that exigent circumstances is an exception to the rule that the police need to go to a neutral and detached magistrate and get a search warrant based on probable cause.

Here is an example of a case where the police have exigent circumstances:

Guy walks out of his house, covered in blood. He says to a passing police officer, pointing to his house: "I just stabbed my son, in the kitchen. He's there bleeding right now! By the way, you do not have my consent to enter the house."

Of course, the police don't have wait around to get a search warrant to go into the house to check on the condition of the son. They just go on in.

Another example:

Police officer selling tickets to the policeman's ball walks up to a house and sees two guys packaging cocaine through an open window. One of the guys sees the officer and yells to the other. "Cops! We've got to get rid of this stuff! Flush it down the toilet!" The men pick up the cocaine and start moving toward the bathroom.

Of course, the police don't have to go and get a warrant to enter the house. They have probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime (cocaine) in the house that is about to be destroyed. They have the right to enter the house and secure the evidence without getting a search warrant.

The police can sometimes have exigent cirsumstances draw your blood to preserve evidence of intoxication.

If the cops can enter your house under the doctrine of exigent circumstances, if they can draw your blood under the doctrine of exigent cirsumstances, what is the big deal about opening mail if exigent circumstances are present?

 

[TragicMonkey]

If the cops can enter your house under the
doctrine of exigent circumstances, if they can draw your blood under the doctrine of exigent cirsumstances, what is the big deal about opening mail if exigent circumstances are present?

Do you trust Bush, with his track record, of defining "exigent" the same way you would?

 

[fishbob]

Exigent circumstances - the Bush definition:

Exigent sounds like the opposite of indigent - which is what homeless people are, so if somebody is not homeless then they must have an address, and if they have an address they get mail, which we can look at any time we want.

 

[Random]

But the whole point of exigent circumstances is that there are situations where there is no time to get a warrant. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where there is no time to obtain a warrant to open a piece of mail. If anything, you can hold the unopened piece of mail and wait for a warrant. You can usually get a warrant within an hour if you apply to the right judge. Most administrations have a couple of warrant happy judges on speed dial for situations like that. And if there is such an immediate necessity, then it would fit under exigent circumstances anyway.

 

[Luke T.]

I think Bush uses signing statements in the absence of line-item veto power.

Signing statements are also a way for the President to explain how he interprets a law. Or to say which parts he doesn't feel like enforcing. And sometimes a signing statement is nothing more than an "attaboy" praising the law.

"Yeah! 'Bout time! Way to go!"

"Okay, I read Article 693, Clause 94, Paragraph 2.B.(43).(aa) to mean that I can piss on the Constitution after regular working hours, i.e., between 5:01:00 p.m. and 8:59:59 a.m. EST."

 

[hgc]

I think Bush uses signing statements in the absence of line-item veto power.

Signing statements are also a way for the President to explain how he interprets a law. Or to say which parts he doesn't feel like enforcing. And sometimes a signing statement is nothing more than an "attaboy" praising the law.

"Yeah! 'Bout time! Way to go!"

"Okay, I read Article 693, Clause 94, Paragraph 2.B.(43).(aa) to mean that I can piss on the Constitution after regular working hours, i.e., between 5:01:00 p.m. and 8:59:59 a.m. EST."

Oh, absense of line-item veto. I take that to mean that he uses them to take on powers that don't rightfully belong to the President. Is that what you mean to say?

 

[Luke T.]

Oh, absense of line-item veto. I take that to mean that he uses them to take on powers that don't rightfully belong to the President. Is that what you mean to say?

We would have to be mind readers to know the truth. Does the President truly believe he is acting lawfully? Or does he know he is taking on powers that are not rightfully his?

What has to be done is to watch his actions, and then if they appear to be outside his powers, to challenge him in court.

Or, if one is a mind-reader, you could just impeach him.

And a signing statement doesn't have to "take on powers". It could also be a way to announce that he is not going to use powers that are rightfully his.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."

 

[hgc]

We would have to be mind readers to know the truth. Does the President truly believe he is acting lawfully? Or does he know he is taking on powers that are not rightfully his?

What has to be done is to watch his actions, and then if they appear to be outside his powers, to challenge him in court.

Or, if one is a mind-reader, you could just impeach him.

And a signing statement doesn't have to "take on powers". It could also be a way to announce that he is not going to use powers that are rightfully his.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it."

Expressing your opinion is not the same as being a mind-reader, although there may be some overlap. Afterall, you did express your opinion that he's using signing statements in the absense of line-item veto. You are certainly entitled to a further opinion as to whether he exceeds his rightful authority, without being accused of mind-reading.

 

[Luke T.]

Expressing your opinion is not the same as being a mind-reader, although there may be some overlap. Afterall, you did express your opinion that he's using signing statements in the absense of line-item veto. You are certainly entitled to a further opinion as to whether he exceeds his rightful authority, without being accused of mind-reading.

The "line-item veto" was one of two parts of what I said. The veto part is under the category of choosing not to enforce a section he disagrees with. That does not fall under exceeding his powers, in my opinion. If anything, he is limiting powers given to him by the law.

 

[Luke T.]

You can read the signing statement for yourself.

You can see it is like I was saying. He is explaining how he interprets various parts of the Act.

The executive branch shall construe subsection 409(h) of title 39, as enacted by section 404 of the Act, which relates to legal representation for an element of the executive branch, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

And then there is the part that is causing the tempest:

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.

The subsection of the Act that he is talking about:

`(c) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109v9Ptpa

 

[TsarBomba]

But the whole point of exigent circumstances is that there are situations where there is no time to get a warrant. I find it difficult to imagine a situation where there is no time to obtain a warrant to open a piece of mail.

I think that you have made my point for me. What we are talking about here is "exigent circumstances" and only "exigent circumstances." If exigent circumstances don't exist, then the feds can't open the mail without a warrant, and if they do so the evidence can't be used by the U.S. Attorney in court and the federal agents are setting themselves up for a federal civil rights suit (pursuant to the doctrine of Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents, and yes that's a real case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971).

Also, remember that not all mail is in the form of letters. Maybe you can't see exigent circumstances for the feds opening a letter, but how about a package. How about one of those Priority Mail tyvec pouches? What if the feds got credible information that it contained a bomb that was about to go off? Would that be exigent circumstances in your opinion? What if the bomb was a radiological device? What if it was a biological weapon? What if it was a nuke (probably a pretty big darn parcel, but you never know)? All I am trying to say is that there are some circumstances where most people would agree that law enforcement would be derelict in their duties if they did not open a piece of United States Mail without waiting for a warrant.

 

[TragicMonkey]

All I am trying to say is that there are some circumstances where most people would agree that law enforcement would be derelict in their duties if they did not open a piece of United States Mail without waiting for a warrant.

And all I'm trying to say is that when such a course of action is required or not should be determined by law enforcement, not a shady politician. I'd rather trust a cop than a politician; if any abuse occurs, at least the cop can be held accountable.

 

[TsarBomba]

And all I'm trying to say is that when such a course of action is required or not should be determined by law enforcement, not a shady politician. I'd rather trust a cop than a politician; if any abuse occurs, at least the cop can be held accountable.

Right! That's what the President is saying. As I read the signing statement, the President is saying something to the effect of: "By signing this, I am not depriving the police/FBI/ATF/DEA/CIA/Etc of the use of the doctrine of exigent circumstances as it comes to pieces of mail."

Also, while I understand your concern about a "shady politican," there is a reason that we actually elect a President. In fact, there is a very good reason that we have elected officials in charge of what the police do and what they don't do. The police need to be accountable to the public, and the only way to do that is to have a politician's future on the line if the police mess up. If the feds messed it up and failed to open a piece of mail that contained a radiological device when they could have prevented a dirty bomb going off in mid-town Manhattan, most of the country (who knows, mabye even you) would pillory the President for the negligent actions of his underlings, and rightly so. I would much rather have an FBI agent call the President (or to be more realistic, the Attorney General) and ask for their guidance on actions than to have a federal law enforcement system think that they can do whatever they want, without consulting a politician or those people the politicians appoint.