Bush Signing May Change Mail Laws

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[minsue]

What's amazing is that everyone sits by and lets them. *shudder*

 

[Svenskaflicka]

LET'S sit down and think about this for a moment. We all know that some morons send BOMBs in the mail, and it's only logic that THE postal offices wants to have the right to open each little innocent-looking WHITE envelope to make sure it's safe to deliver it to the HOUSE it's intende for. WITH a little reasoning, I'm sure we can understand why BUSH decided to legilalize such a possibility. I mean, IN all fairness' sake, IT's a matter of public safety, isn't?

 

[rgraham666]

Shrugs.

Can't say I'm surprised.

But President Bush is a revolutionary. And revolutionaries rarely regard themselves as limited by law, customs or ethics. They feel they must reach their goal and everything and everyone is either a tool to reach that goal or an obstacle to be neutralized.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

But President Bush is a revolutionary.

At least when it comes to sentence structure.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The problem is, the Postal Reform Act had nothing to do with security. Bush's "Signing Paper" is another shoddy example of Bush and his cronies making rules to suit themselves at the expense of the the citizen's Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Fucking Bastard!

 

[scriptordelecto]

At least when it comes to sentence structure.

*spews* Indeed Sven!

 

[rgraham666]

At least when it comes to sentence structure.

I do wish he'd limit himself to that though. Sigh.

 

[TheEarl]

In England, it used to be a hanging offence to fuck with the King's Mail.

The Earl

 

[Svenskaflicka]

In England, it used to be a hanging offence to fuck with the King's Mail.

The Earl

*trying to come up with joke about fucking with mail + opening packages containing Sport's Illustrated Bikini Issue*

script... Don't-call-me-"Sven"!

 

[Tom Collins]

LET'S sit down and think about this for a moment. We all know that some morons send BOMBs in the mail, and it's only logic that THE postal offices wants to have the right to open each little innocent-looking WHITE envelope to make sure it's safe to deliver it to the HOUSE it's intende for. WITH a little reasoning, I'm sure we can understand why BUSH decided to legilalize such a possibility. I mean, IN all fairness' sake, IT's a matter of public safety, isn't?

*Sprite spew*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!

Let's!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*Sprite spew*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!

Let's!

FINALLY someone got the joke!

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[Tom Collins]

Oh, I got it right away, sweetie.

I just live in a country that is being ruled by someone who believes himself to be a god, and if I dare to joke about such things I would probably be arrested.

They are probably watching Lit at this very moment . . .

No, I'm not! I emphatically deny spying, bribing or coercing anyone on this or any other site! I do not now, nor have I ever reported information about anyone or anything that goes on around here to any sort of higher up in any sort of Federal spy-type factory; the common designation of which is usually letters in groups of three. I am nothing more than your average smut writer/reader. I only come here for research help, camaraderie and flirting.

That’s the story they gave me and I’m sticking to it. *nods*

 

[LLs Man]

In England, it used to be a hanging offence to fuck with the King's Mail.

The Earl

While it's not a hanging offence these days (but then neither is anything else), it's still a criminal offence to interfere with the mail (at least mail handled by Royal Mail, not sure about the other couriers). There's only one office in the whole RM network with a licence to open mail, & that's the Returned Letter Branch (which handles parcels too these days) in Belfast. Outside that office, even RM employees (and I'm one, which is how I know this stuff ) aren't allowed to open mail.

 

[Mesachie]

US Mail

There were rules for opening suspect packages that were somewhat limiting. Basically only a Postal Inspector could open a package or letter. In urban areas that is generally fine, in less than big city circumstances, it is much less effective.

The idea of the law as described isn't something that gets me very concerned. I can understand the necessity of a bomb squad needing to open a suspected bomb and not having time for a postal inspector to be on scene. Particularly if it is somewhere other than in a city of a few hundred thousand which will have postal inspector. Someone mails a bomb in a town of twenty thousand, you will spend a lot of time waiting for a postal inspector to show up.

Now, I started out as a Bush supporter. But having watched his crew at work for six years now, I'm very concerned. If they can re-interpret it to be lawful, they will use it. Any grey area becomes fair game. That has led to legal torture, imprisonment without recourse, and star chamber courts. Hundreds of years of progress in terms of individual legal rights and judicial precedent has been swept away by the Bush administration.

The law, while possibly necessary in certain circumstances, is dangerous because the people enforcing the law are dangerous.

Mesachie

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Associated Press
Bush Signing May Change Mail Laws
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID 01.04.07, 2:28 PM ET

http://www.forbes.com/business/healthcare/feeds/ap/2007/01/04/ap3299542.html

A signing statement attached to postal legislation by President Bush last month may have opened the way for the government to open mail without a warrant.

The White House denies any change in policy.

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. ..."

"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.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said there was nothing new in the signing statement.

In his daily briefing Snow said: "All this is saying is that there are provisions at law for - in exigent circumstances - for such inspections. It has been thus. This is not a change in law, this is not new."

Postal Vice President Tom Day added: "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 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," she 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."

The president's action was first reported by the New York Daily News.

The full signing statement said:

"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.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed


Additional links -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/05/w...1168096282-jw01lXI+4NOYfrBPF0ZnzA&oref=slogin

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/01/white-house-defends-signing-statement.php



Just fucking amazing.

"If you want an image of the future, picture a boot stamping on a human face- forever." 1984 by George Orwell.....I read shit like this and can't get that idea out of my head.....it's stuff like this (and the whole fundamentalist/social conservative connection) that caused me to leave the GOP.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Since the democrats and the UN have been hobbled like dead race horses and its unlikely we will see an impeachment hearing followed by simultaneous trials for the numerous treason counts as well as an International War Crimes trial, I tend towards the following fantasy.

Every law, every repeal of civil rights, every "frat boy prank", every "you have nothing to fear" being applied to him, his cabinet, his party leaders, the pundits who fall over themselves to protect the dictator and his remaining supporters.

Have Bill O' Reilly's mail opened and searched through, have Dick Cheney spend some indefinite time in Gitmo, have Rush try out waterboarding, tap Rove's phone, release all their secrets, take away their civil rights.

It's for the security of our nation, right Mr. Bush? So suffer with us.

 

[rgraham666]

Since the democrats and the UN have been hobbled like dead race horses and its unlikely we will see an impeachment hearing followed by simultaneous trials for the numerous treason counts as well as an International War Crimes trial, I tend towards the following fantasy.

Every law, every repeal of civil rights, every "frat boy prank", every "you have nothing to fear" being applied to him, his cabinet, his party leaders, the pundits who fall over themselves to protect the dictator and his remaining supporters.

Have Bill O' Reilly's mail opened and searched through, have Dick Cheney spend some indefinite time in Gitmo, have Rush try out waterboarding, tap Rove's phone, release all their secrets, take away their civil rights.

It's for the security of our nation, right Mr. Bush? So suffer with us.

Snicker. It's amazing how often people's tunes change when it's them who have to suffer.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Since the democrats and the UN have been hobbled like dead race horses and its unlikely we will see an impeachment hearing followed by simultaneous trials for the numerous treason counts as well as an International War Crimes trial, I tend towards the following fantasy.

Every law, every repeal of civil rights, every "frat boy prank", every "you have nothing to fear" being applied to him, his cabinet, his party leaders, the pundits who fall over themselves to protect the dictator and his remaining supporters.

Have Bill O' Reilly's mail opened and searched through, have Dick Cheney spend some indefinite time in Gitmo, have Rush try out waterboarding, tap Rove's phone, release all their secrets, take away their civil rights.

It's for the security of our nation, right Mr. Bush? So suffer with us.

You can't impeach Bush. The Dems don't have the votes for a 2/3rd majority, first of all. Even if you did, the he would have to be tried by the Senate and that would take two years or more. Do they have the votes in the Senate to find him guilty of "high crimes and misdomeanors". Doubtful.