Bush: Mail Subject To Warrantless Searches

Presidential Signing Statement Claims Feds Can Open Mail In Certain Circumstances

(CBS/AP)  President George W. Bush has created more controversy over his domestic intelligence gathering policies with a previously unnoticed "Signing Statement" attached to a postal reform bill which claims federal officials can open U.S. mail without a warrant.

The law as passed by the House and Senate requires government agents to get warrants to open first-class letters.

But the presidential statement, signed on December 20, added that sealed mail can be searched 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."

The White House said the president is not claiming any new authority and that the statement does not change the scope of current law.

Spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore told CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, "The signing statement merely recognizes a legal proposition that is totally uncontroversial: that in certain circumstances – such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' – the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches."

But CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen questioned why the president felt it necessary to attach the language to the bill if nothing has changed.

"I don't think the White House would have included this language into a signing statement unless the feds were either already searching mail without a warrant or planning to do so," Cohen said. "And if the legal right to do so were as clear as the White House now says it's hard to believe that there was a need to remind everyone of the fact in a bill about the postal service."

"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.

Postal Vice President Tom Day said Thursday: "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, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., 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 White House first came under scrutiny for its domestic surveillance policies in December 2005 when the New York Times revealed a National Security Agency program which eavesdropped on phone calls without warrants to do so.

Mr. Bush claimed the NSA program is needed in the war on terrorism; opponents say it oversteps constitutional boundaries on free speech, privacy and executive powers.

In October, a federal appeals court allowed the domestic spying program to continue after a lower court had ordered it stopped.

President Bush has also come under fire from legal experts for creating or expanding presidential powers in bill signing statements. In July, an American Bar Association task force said that the president was violating the Constitution by doing so.

"If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries," ABA president Michael Greco said at the time.

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

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.

Both the warrantless searches and the president's use of signing statement's could be challenged by the newly convened Democratic congress.

"With Democrats now in control of Congress, don't be surprised if we see an investigation into these sorts of uses of signing statements and of the White House's legal authority to undertake searches like this without a warrant or other court order," Cohen said.

[hsmagst]

And PS......Rove wouldn't have to do this to find stuff.......the Dems hand it too him openly with their actions.

[hsmagst]

But in reality, they are no longer yours when you have turned them over to a government postal entity. They are no longer in your possession and actually, it is illegal for you to ask a postman to return it to you if you drop it into a letter box.....at that point it is postal property and you are required to file the proper paperwork to retrieve them. The only reason I know this is because I accidently put a paycheck that was mixed up with some letters into a box......took a long time to get it back due to the paperwork.

[talsian]

Anyway, this is all probably just a device used by Rove to search the Dem's mail to figure out stuff he can use in his smear campaigns.

[talsian]

Well, hsmagst, you obviously didn't look too hard at the constitution.

(Amendment IV)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[hsmagst]

Maybe its my eyes or just old age but no matter how many times I read the constitution, I can't find anything that says I have the right to send whatever I want through a government established business with any expectation of total privacy.

I don't have it with UPS or FedEx or DHL but somehow I'm supposed to believe I have it with a government entity?

Sorry but I want the government to be observent and open suspicious packages or letters.....better they suffer any attacks using letter bombs or anthrax or some such than it getting into my living room......just really not worrying about in my book.

[cantshutup]

who are those demons standing behind the devil (no offense to the real satan) as he signs that bill??? I would really like to know who those smiles belong to...

[cantshutup]

The public servants get paid better, have better medical benefits and live a life of luxery while the people sweat and die for the dictator in the whitehouse

[cantshutup]

I don't think the public servents who represent us in washington are taking us seriously, any ideas?

[cantshutup]

How do you propose we do that gossimer3? Seems like bushie might put us in one of his terrorist prisons if we try

[gossimer]

I say it's HIGH TIME America declared war on Bush and his regime and TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!

[gossimer]

KUDOS to r_bayless!!!

[randalds]

Posted by tepidaccount at 09:49 PM : Jan 05, 2007


Bravo! Well stated!

[lukebize]

bellaL wrote:

"'What war? When did Congress declare war?'
Posted by tepidaccount at 03:24 PM : Jan 05, 2007

"That doesn't have anything to do with whether we are still at risk of another terrorist attack which of course we are."

That "risk" has _always_ existed. Terrorism is a matter for intelligence and police agencies. It is a matter that armies are unequipped to deal with. Using armies for purposes which they are not suited is a mistake. Most leaders learn this quickly, from their own military leaders. Bush is an exception; he *fired* the military leaders who tried to warn him.

Once we conquered the Taliban in Afghanistan (a legitimate and just military action), there was no state left to fight. We invaded Iraq without any reason. By doing so, we destroyed the _only_ remaining secular Arab government in the region. Every other Arab state in the Persian Gulf is a theocracy. Don't believe me? Go look up the CIA sheet on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. It is publicly available online. Inform yourself.

Bush knew this. So did Cheney and Rove and Libby and ALL of them. They all were warned that removing Hussein could easily result in a pan-Arab sectarian state that would present problems that make our current situation look pretty tame.

And you think this is a "good" war. Heh.

It might be good for those who are waiting for Armageddon, but it isn't very good for those who have some sense of rationality.

[lukebize]

bellaL wrote:


"'What war? When did Congress declare war?'
Posted by tepidaccount at 03:24 PM : Jan 05, 2007

That doesn't have anything to do with whether we are still at risk of another terrorist attack which of course we are."

So what? It has *everything* to do with the Presidential assumption of extraordinary wartime powers. Bush has invoked those powers many times. Yet we are NOT at war.

WAR! is a constant refrain among Bush supporters. War this, war that. War on terror, war on drugs, war on kiddie porn, war on Christmas.

It is THE defining term for neo-conservatives. Their entire existence revolves around war, much like the next cigarette for a lifetime smoker. They are hooked on it. They _need_ it. Without war, they cannot hide the fact that they are just another bunch of garden-variety, power-grasping psychos, not unlike your typical religious fundamentalist.

You say you think this war was essential. Well, how about the way we are fighting it? Without armor, for instance. Do you think it was essential to send our troops in naked?

How about the betrayal of a CIA agent whose job was to monitor the kinds of weapons possessed by terrorist groups? You think THAT was essential, too? How about the way the country was persuaded to war: by lies and outrageous manipulation of good intelligence. Intelligence which, BTW, loyal American and foreign agents risked their lives to acquire.

You like that? You think there is ANYTHING patriotic about all that?

They can snoop in my mail all they want, does not matter to me, unless it is entry into the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes, then I might get mad, Hell I could be next milionaire according the TV commercial!!

[talsian]

He's probably reading the mail of his daughters. Why else would he have to skip the warrants? What about his political enemies? Well, I guess maybe them too.

[cantshutup]

The only time in my life I've ever even considered looking in someone else's mail was because of a bad grade I didn't want my parents to see...There's no good reason for snooping in someone else's mail! Are you listening mr bush?

[bellal-2009]

"In wartime "security trumps liberty"."

What war? When did Congress declare war?
Posted by tepidaccount at 03:24 PM : Jan 05, 2007

That doesn't have anything to do with whether we are still at risk of another terrorist attack which of course we are.

[lukebize]

perception5 wrote:

"In wartime "security trumps liberty"."

What war? When did Congress declare war? What are the articles of this war? Why didn't anyone tell the media about it? Who is the enemy?

Is it a secret war? A war against phantoms and ghosts?

Or is it just slogan? A ruse to dispense public tax money to private companies? Great profit at the price of the lives of a few American troops?

At any rate, Congress is supposed to tell us when we are in a war. So far, AFAIK, they have not.

[randalds]

To RandalDS -- here in US March 17th is St. Pat's Day - NYC, San Fran, Chicago, DC, Boston are major cities that will NOT be able to allow two large groups to gather - and police presence here in NY will be high as it is due to St. Pat's day - don't these organizers take these things into consideration and realize the futility of trying to have two large events in cities on the same day??
Posted by nyckate at 03:54 PM : Jan 04, 2007

Maybe they hope the drunk Irish will join us? They could have picked a better date, but it's the Saturday closest to the anniversary of the start of Bush's folly.