Bush Claims Power To Open Mail Without A Warrant - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-04-2007, 09:32 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
redhotswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Waiting for this madness to end.
Posts: 5,846
Local Time: 08:27 PM
He lets Cheney do the rest.

wahahahahahaha you know its true!
__________________

__________________
redhotswami is offline  
Old 01-04-2007, 11:17 PM   #32
Acrobat
 
BorderGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Under A Blood Red Texas Sky
Posts: 418
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
In college I wrote to several left-wing political organizations.... and when I got stuff back it had invariably been opened.
Or just maybe it was that way before it even left the building???
Let's open the envelopes and reseal them before mailing
What a way to keep the paranoids united???
No one ever opens and checks our mail, just the government.
It's a slippery slope out there people. Ya just never know......
__________________

__________________
BorderGirl is offline  
Old 01-04-2007, 11:18 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BorderGirl


Does anyone believe there is never a reason to intercept mail? Just asking.

"The Dec. 20 signing statement said the president had the power to check mail "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."

source: abcnews.go.com
The scanning for explosives and physical materials - yes. But targeting "suspicious" people and snooping for intelligence - absolutely not. Get a valid warrant and obtain these documents as part of a legal search and seizure.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 01:03 AM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lindenhurst Long Island
Posts: 174
Local Time: 01:27 AM
'' FREEDUMB''
__________________
u2fan628 is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 08:56 AM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 08:27 PM
It all seems a bit "fuzzy" to me Gee must be just a coincidence, all those signing statements he's issued.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472777/

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 and also asking whether it has already been used to open mail.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., also 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. 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.

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,” Beeson 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.”
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 09:41 AM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, more than all other presidents combined, according to the American Bar Association.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 11:20 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Presidential vetos;

FDR -- 635
Truman -- 250
Eisenhower -- 181
Kennedy -- 21
Johnson -- 30
Nixon -- 43
Ford -- 66
Carter -- 31
Reagan -- 78
Bush I -- 44
Clinton -- 37
Bush II -- 1

Maybe the Huffington Post is exaggerating a wee bit when it says Bush is "arrogating" power for himself or "jamming" things down Congress's throat.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 11:40 AM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:27 PM
A signing statement and a veto are two different things.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 12:03 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
A signing statement and a veto are two different things.
Given recent trends by Clinton and Bush II it might be suggested that the signing statement has become the de facto veto.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 12:10 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:27 PM
maybe...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 01:04 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 08:27 PM
How many signing statements did Clinton make?

How many had to do with privacy rights?

I Googled it

Clinton- 140 over 8 years

Bush Sr - 232 in 4 years

It's not the number, it's the manner in which it is used and the reasons for it. I think it's just more of GWB using terrorism to justify intrusion into privacy.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 01:31 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Conservatives have argued for a presidential line item veto for 25 years which might cut down on these signing statements.

Anyway, you now have Pelosi & Co to rein in Mr. Bush.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 01:37 PM   #43
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Conservatives have argued for a presidential line item veto for 25 years which might cut down on these signing statements.

Maybe true conservatives, but those hardly exist anymore. True conservatives are rolling in their graves at what the neo-cons have done to their name.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 02:05 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Maybe true conservatives, but those hardly exist anymore. True conservatives are rolling in their graves at what the neo-cons have done to their name.
Well, I'd like to think we still exist, but yes I agree with you.

In the same way that the liberalism Of JFK (lower taxes, the use of the military to spread liberty, the essentiality of God to American life and morality), has been jettisoned by the left. In fact, today, they're more identified as conservative ideas aren't they.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-05-2007, 02:32 PM   #45
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Well, I'd like to think we still exist, but yes I agree with you.

In the same way that the liberalism Of JFK (lower taxes, the use of the military to spread liberty, the essentiality of God to American life and morality), has been jettisoned by the left. In fact, today, they're more identified as conservative ideas aren't they.
Well not exactly. The beauty of liberalism, is it's always been defined in a way that it can evolve.

God and morality being exclusive to liberalism is a lie you've been sold by your neo-con buddies. Something I always thought you were a little bit too smart to fall for.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com