This sucks for those that depend on MOM!!EVERYBODY READ

[BlueCat]

Bush says feds can open mail without warrants!!!!!!

President Bush has "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant," the New York Daily News writes this morning.
When he put his signature on a postal reform bill on Dec. 20, the newspaper notes, the president added a "signing statement" that "declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions."
The key phrase in that statement:
"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."
According to the Daily News, legal experts say the president's claim is "contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed."
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore, though, told the Daily News that "in certain circumstances -- such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' -- the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches."
Word of Bush's action follows revelations last year about the National Security Agency's so-called warrantless eavesdropping on telephone and Internet communications.

BlueCat Reviewed by BlueCat on 01-04-2007. This sucks for those that depend on MOM!!EVERYBODY READ Bush says feds can open mail without warrants!!!!!! President Bush has "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant," the New York Daily News writes this morning. When he put his signature on a postal reform bill on Dec. 20, the newspaper notes, the president added a "signing statement" that "declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions." The key phrase in that statement: "The executive branch shall construe subsection Rating: 5

[Psycho4Bud]

LOL....feel I should make a lil' Mod comment here. This thread is dangerously close:
Threads containing Mail Order M. will be instantly nuked - do not ask about M.O.M.

BUT I feel this is different because it isn't asking about or promoting MOM or a MOM site.......just making a political statement about how the law is going to affect others. I call NO FOUL! :smokin:

Just thought that "maybe" some may question why.......

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[BlueCat]

Didn't even really come close Everyone loves Mom.

so what do you think of your mail being opened?

[birdgirl73]

I find this troubling. And I'm sure the world's they're-taking-our-freedoms-away conspiracists are just about to fly off the face of the earth with this news. I don't want GWB opening my mail. Heck, he'd have to have the postman read it to him anyway . . . .

[MastaChronic]

ive already said this but i'll say it again

the people of america were given rights in order to over throw the government if it did anything that we didnt like.
this is one of the things that we should fight against.
physically fight, hurt those responsible for this outrage and change it.
the government doesnt control the people; the people control the government although they do a fine job of convincing you otherwise.

[Psycho4Bud]

"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."

I can appreciate the "exigent circumstances" but would like to see "hazardous materials" a bit more defined. Where is the list? Also, what exactly defines "foriegn intelligence collection"? Are we talking about curbing real terrorists or opening up doors for seed sales, etc....

Good intentions with VERY bad wording.......As written.....thumbs down.:toilet_claw:

By the way, if ya didn't notice this passed the house something like 420-20 and had a unanimous vote in the senate....

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[the yeag]

what's a mom ? you do not meenMAIL ORDER MARIJUANA do you that would get your thread nuked.:jointsmile: who cares anything going through customs gets checked anyway. the secrets will always be avoiding customs and stealth shipping not who is paying attention or even opening your mail.

[medicinal]

Little by little we are losing our freedoms. G.W. Bush has taken more freedoms with his signings than any president in the last hundred years, and yes I'm aware of the Japanese internments. This guy is serious about making this country a dictatorship. If we (the American people) don't insist on impeachment for high treason, we are doomed. He has 2 more years to complete his mission and the gutless democrats are doing nothing to stop him. We need 3-10 million people parked in DC bringing that city to a standstill, untill impeachment proceedings begin! If ever a president deserved Impeachment, this dude is on the top of the list. How many more of our constitutional freedoms are we willing to give this asshole? They used to only open Jail mail! Speak up or lose your freedom!

[Psycho4Bud]

Completely amused. LOL.....Bush this Bush that, DAMN:

This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The totals were: 410 Ayes, 20 Nays, 3 Present/Not Voting.
View Members' Votes (roll no. 430)

Dec 8, 2006: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

Dec 9, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6407

It's not like he makes up laws and stamps them without any form of checks and balances.........where's the House vote? Senate vote? I don't give a rats ass if the dude/dudette is Dem. or Rep., there IS a House vote and Senate vote and it looks like both pushed this in bigtime!

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[Hagbard Celiene]

I just want to hear bush pronounce "exigent circumstances." and i think at the heart of the issue is that he added something on to the bill as he was signing it into law, circumventing the checks and balances.