Last month President Bush, in one of his infamous signing statements, claimed the authority to open Americans’ mail without a warrant to collect foreign intelligence or in “exigent circumstances.”
On December 20, Bush signed a postal reform bill into law, and attached a signing statement that cites “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” as reasons mail may be opened without due process.
Sure, intercepting anthrax and mail bombs is fine; most people aren’t going to complain about that. But what else could these exigent circumstances be? And how did Bush get all this power, anyway?
“Despite the President’s statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people’s mail without a warrant,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
“The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
“The danger is they’re reading Americans’ mail,” she said.
“You have to be concerned,” agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush’s claim. “It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we’ve ever known.”
A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, “It’s something we’re going to look into.” — New York Daily News
“This is not a change in the law. This is not new,” said White House press secretary Tony Snow. “It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the President of the United States.”
Snow said that Bush’s signing statement was “trying to make absolutely clear what present law permits.”
But some civil liberties and national-security law experts said the statement’s language is unduly vague and appears to go beyond long-recognized limits on the ability of the government to open letters and other U.S. mail without approval from a judge. . . .
Administration critics said they were particularly confused because the relevant portion of the postal reform legislation — which prohibits opening mail without warrants in most circumstances — remains unchanged.
A White House official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the signing statement, first revealed by the New York Daily News, was intended only to make clear that the new law would not limit the ability of the president or attorney general to open mail under emergency provisions of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs spying in the United States. That law allows authorities to conduct searches and surveillance without warrants in emergency situations, although they must apply for a warrant later.
“The point was that because Congress was passing this anew, the concern was that there would be some confusion,” the official said. “The law that’s been around since 1978 still allows you to conduct warrantless physical searches under some circumstances, and nothing changes that authority.” — Washington Post
Customs and Border Protection, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, routinely inspects packages bound for the United States for various reasons, though in at least one known case it opened a letter bound for a University of Kansas history professor from one of his colleagues in the Philippines.
In the 1970s, the Church Committee, convened after Watergate to investigate executive branch abuses of power, found that the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation had been illegally opening Americans’ mail for decades, targeting dissidents, civil rights activists and Vietnam War protesters, among others.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3233 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Dana
Jan 04, 2007
I think all my international packages are opened. And always have been. I wish they’d do the courtesy to repack it nicely, though.
And sending stuff to Australia is rather difficult. Everything is inspected and stuff gets quarantined all the time. They’re worried about fruit, though. Even passengers on planes get sprayed with pesticides before getting off the plane and one is riddled with questions while passing through customs about everywhere you’ve been for the last six months and what you are carrying.
Heathrow was fun, too. I got escorted around by a soldier with a semi-automatic weapon because I did not have a visa and had a layover in London.
Scott
Jan 04, 2007
No wonder I have not been getting a lot of mail lately and what I do get has been “damaged by postal service equipment” (aka the government opening it up) on a fairly regular basis. At least Bush’s cronies could take some of the crap mail that I get.
Michael Hampton
Jan 04, 2007
My mail is sometimes delayed for a week or as much as two. They haven’t “damaged” any of my mail since 1993, though.
Tahoma Activist
Jan 05, 2007
Thanks for publicizing this. As a postal worker i am outraged by this. We absolutely can not take this lying down, and we can not accept that flack’s story about what this is all about. This is about illegally opening people’s mail, and it must be stopped, now. Before it gets worse.
please connect people to the site I set up for this – postalworkersunited.blogspot.com
Slim
Jan 05, 2007
Just another reason to use FedEx, UPS, or some other private delivery service. I guess if you want privacy you need to pay for it. I use the USPS once a year to send the government the papers they demand and maybe some extortion money. Other then that and maybe a occasional piece of mail that has to be delivered by the government delivery service I use either e-mail, fax, text message, or if I have to send a piece of paper one of the private delivery service. My letters get there quick secure and who does not like it when a person hand delivers a letter to your door? I may pay a premium price but the knowledge that I am not supporting a gang of violent thugs makes it all worth while.
BelchSpeak
Jan 05, 2007
Heh. UPS, Fed Ex and other shippers all belong to a club sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security. Its called the “Shipping ISAC.” While there may be laws to protect the privacy of contents of federal mail, there are no such laws or guarantees for private companies. This ISAC does indeed share information on suspicious mailers, packages and addresses with the FBI counterterrorism group.
Regarding the false headline of this post. The President does not want to open your mail. The President reserves the right to open up terrorist’s mail.
There’s a difference.
Vigilante
Jan 05, 2007
So, who made the Chickenhawk-in-Chief the Legislator-in-Chief?
BelchSpeak
Jan 05, 2007
The right for military commanders to intercept enemy communications in a time of war predates the formation of this country.
Or do you think that Benedict Arnold had his civil rights violated when his satchel containing mail and correspondence was intercepted by the Colonial forces indicating plans to surrender the Hudson Valley to the Brits in the Revolutionary war?
The paranoid delusions that the President wants to read the birthday cards from your dear Aunt Polly are laughable.
SHRIKEE
Jan 05, 2007
but they first have to open your mail to see if its from a terrorist
so how does that work…
Ray
Jan 05, 2007
Belched brain:
regarding:
Regarding the false headline of this post. The President does not want to open your mail. The President reserves the right to open up terrorist’s mail.
There’s a difference.
The president is reserving the right to open the mail of anyone he says is a terrorist (or any other reason that is in the national interest for that matter), especially given the President and his lap dogs’ past history there is in fact a big difference between this and “open up terrorist’s mail”
Ray
Jan 06, 2007
Belched Brain:
So the president has the right to do anything he wants to as long as he claims that it is as commander and chief and it supports the “war effort”. How about the execution of all people who don’t support the federal governments expansion of powers. Certainly in our history and in world history the military has executed people who have not supported them.
At what point are you willing to say “enough is enough”. The most dangerous people to our nation are not the terrorists, but it those who would throw out our constitutional protections in order to fight this “war on terror”.
Incidentally I do write things and mail them that the president and his lap dogs might want to read. I am not a terrorist that is for sure. (Well according to one definition that the president has expressed where anyone who doesn’t fully support his efforts is a “terrorist” maybe I am; but that is a separate issue). But I do discuss protest efforts and other such efforts that the president might want to know of ahead of time to more effectively combat with others who agree with me.
BelchSpeak
Jan 06, 2007
You sound so hysterical. You should see a gynocologist about your vapors. You seem completely unhinged and devoid of the ability to think logically. Either that, or you are falling for the MSM’s efforts to undermine this administration in a time of war by buying into the story that this is a new power for the President.
Bush didnt suddenly grant himself a new power that no other president ever had Ray. If you seriously believe that then you are sadly misguided. Clinton had these same powers, and he actually used them. Against the mafia. Every president has the powers under the constitution to conduct searches as long as they are reasonable. Seems very reasonable to me that he would be interested in intercepting enemy communications and transmissions.
If you are making youself the enemy of the country and are on the FBI’s watch list, then yes, they are probably reading your mail too. Maybe they got a search warrant first, but even if they did, they dont have to tell you about it. And this too is nothing sudden or new, as it existed long before the GWOT.
And if you think that people trying to protect this country are more dangerous than terrorists that have killed thousands of our own people, you are so wrong. The men and women who work in Washington are not monsters, but ordinary citizens like you and me. None of them have dark evil plans to injure or hurt their fellow citizens in any way.
Your kind will be the first to decry the government’s failure to stop the next terrorist attack when it occurs.
Vigilante
Jan 06, 2007
Bush has used 750 signing statements in 6 years; Clinton used 140 in eight years.
Michael Hampton
Jan 06, 2007
So the government just injures or hurts people by accident? Hardly. It does so intentionally. Need I remind you of the words of George Washington on this point?
BelchSpeak
Jan 06, 2007
So, the government intercepting enemy communications is called “injuring and hurting people” now? Put down the bong and take two steps back.
BelchSpeak
Jan 06, 2007
And during all of those times of exigent circumstances in your ancestors’ days, the US government still maintained the ability to intercept and read postal messages.
You seem to think this is a new ability of the President- the point is its not.
Michael Hampton
Jan 06, 2007
Ad hominem attacks are quite unproductive and not at all what I would expect of an intelligent person such as yourself.
The issue here is not “enemy communications.” It’s “exigent circumstances.” We’ve had some sort of exigent circumstance or another throughout my lifetime, and throughout my parents’ lifetimes, and throughout my grandparents’ lifetimes.
You seem to think this sort of thing has never happened to Americans exercising their rights before and could never happen again. But it has happened before, and without eternal vigilance, it will happen again.
BelchSpeak
Jan 06, 2007
Ha! Good point, but still, since this is nothing new why resort to the alarmist headlines?
And Ray, your assertion that the President and his staff is quite willing to ignore the constitution is debatable. That debate is waged all the time nowadays, but the President has a staff of constitutional lawyers on hand to make sure he stays within the boundaries of the law. Maybe one of the reasons GW uses so many signing statements is to cover his ass on these questions.
Michael Hampton
Jan 06, 2007
Never did I say that it was a new ability. I made that point clear at least once:
I remain no less concerned that it could be misused, especially if Hillary becomes President in 2008.
Ray
Jan 06, 2007
I have had many contacts with the mind of law enforcement is search situations, and what they would call exigent circumstances is hardly what you (or in that matter the courts) would call exigent. Lets use an example of the bad use of exigent circumstances that everyone would be aware of. OJ and the bloody glove.
Frankly it would have been excluded if I had ruled on the issue. Lets look at it.
The police find two murder victims and two children who are a live and well. The children are the children of the female victim. The father lives elsewhere. So two officers go to notify the father so that he can take custody of the children. Now they get to the residence and notice blood at the location. (I take the police’s word on this) Now they definitely have exigent circumstances. It is possible that someone is injured or dying inside. They have every right and duty to enter and look for such a person. (The alive and maybe needing immediate help makes for exigent, if you know everyone is dead then there is no exigent) But they have to be looking for the person. They can only look in locations a person might be. The find a person and he says that he heard a noise which might be a person falling int he back of the building. So they have obvious exigency for the back of the building. BUT TO LOOK FOR A PERSON.
Here is why I would have excluded the glove. They looked down the area behind the building and find that there was no person alive or otherwise in the area. No more exigency in that area. But they proceeded to search the area and after proceeding into an area and started a search. Then they turned over leaves (when was the last time you knew of someone who could be hidden under a leaf
) They then found the glove and took it in as evidence. They were claiming an exigent circumstances search in an area they new that there was not exigency, and then looked in locations that could not contain the exigency.
If I trusted that indeed there would be actual exigency such as a possible bomb then OK. The cases that I know of with regards to Clinton did not include warrantless searches, which is what we are talking about here, so Clinton appears to have done none of them.
I know that many of the authorities would like “I would like to search but don’t have the evidence for a warrant” to be exigent, but it is not. We have a president and his staff who are quite willing to ignore the constitution, so we have every reason to suspect this signing statement.
Michael Hampton
Jan 06, 2007
Alarmist headlines and breathless reporting are all the rage these days.
I don’t think you’d complain too much when the headlines go the other way, for instance, “Environmentalists want you dead.” Sadly, I threw out that headline. But “Democrats to put poor out of work” is one I expect to come up very soon. It’s alarmist!
BelchSpeak
Jan 06, 2007
Here’s one you can hold onto-
“Environmentalists urge Americans to Become Carbon Neutral.” And “Democrats Applaud Saddam Hussein for Choosing to Become ‘Carbon Neutral.’”
Ray
Jan 07, 2007
Belched brain:
Being carbon neutral is a pretty good idea, which also will probably not work in a lot of cases. So the first part is a who cares, that is their job. I would be worried if they were not urging this. Wished someone would come up with a way to do this.
As for the second. Don’t know the context, but I can’t see what what saying that this was a good idea is a bad idea or wrong. The guy sure did a lot of wrong things, and well deserved his “final big step”. But if he, while he was in power, said that he or his nation was going to become carbon neutral I would think that saying that he was doing a good thing and was right IN THIS DECISION was not a bad statement. ONE has to wonder what your problem with it is.
As for the debatability of his trashing of the constitution is certainly questionable. I think the really only question is if he is right in doing it. I think that our constitution is more important than a man or a time period. Our constitution is also what has won us our past wars we have won. So the best way to fight a war is to defend and support it, and not to trash it.
One additional thought. You supporting Bushes right to read all your mail if he decides that there is a need. Do you support the right of President Hillary (Which is, unfortunately, a real possibility) having this same right?
Sky Rake
Jan 07, 2007
Folks, the majority of federal agencies are headed by retired Secret Service agents who served in the presidential protection unit. They have one master and it’s not the American citizen. The Department of Homeland Security has turned into the Department of Big Brother.
God save America…….Sky
TheAviationNation.com
BelchSpeak
Jan 07, 2007
Ray, the point of my headlines was to point out that the lefties know that the only way to become truly carbon neutral is to cease to breathe. And as far as Hillary having the same powers that other presidents have, YES. All presidents have had the power to intercept mail, and that should not change. I don’t support stripping the Presidential powers. I think its a dangerous erosion of the balance of power among the branches of government.
SkyRake, your idea that the federal agencies is run by retired Secret Service agents is patently false. Do you just dream up these facts, or is that the message you receive through your conspiracy theorist’s BBS?
Ray
Jan 07, 2007
Belch Brain:
All presidents have had the power to intercept domestic mail with a warrant. They also have had the power and it already is in the law for true exigent circumstances. But Bush is claiming the same right without a warrent. This is a big change.
Of course this coming from a person who claims the right to put people in jail for expressing their opinions publicly when those opinions are according to him a threat to the nation.
The right to search anyone and anywhere he decides is a threat without any warrant.
The right to decided who is worth of a jury trial and who is such a threat that they should be held without trial of any kind.
The right to decide what evidence the defense may produce in a trial that he might allow. He also reserves the right to prosecute people for the crime of defending someone who is a threat.
Now why would worry about such a person being in power.
Verbos
Jan 17, 2007
Anyone who believes that the continual erosion of personal freedom and the corruption of our Constitution is not a conspiracy is an idiot! I suppose you think it’s just an accident.