Posted on 01/04/2007 12:31:54 PM PST by Tamar1973
Bush asserted this authority when he signed a postal overhaul bill into law Dec. 20. He then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, experts said.
Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
"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-Los Angeles, the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers easily could be abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"The 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."
Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane measures. But it also explicitly reinforces protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval.
Yet in his statement Bush said he will "construe" an exception, "which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection in a manner consistent ... with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances."
Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore denied Bush was claiming any new authority.
"In certain circumstances, such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb,' the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches," she said.
Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances," which could refer to an imminent danger or a long-standing state of emergency.
Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.
But national security experts said the White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge's saying no while a terror ist attack is looming.
Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.
This is going a bit too far. The Patriot Act was enough -- if the President needs more, we should start by securing our own COUNTRY FIRST...then worrying about the details of what powers the government needs. This is all upside down.
I like the way it's written to make it sound like the president plans to hang out in post offices opening mail.
While he's at it, can he dump the junk mail into the recyclables?
If there is enough evidence in place to suggest that a certain piece of mail is linked to terrorism, then it SHOULD be extremely easy to get a warrant. This makes no sense.
Many nameless critics have also indicated that James Gordon Meek is an alcoholic and a wife beater. A senior editor at the New York Daily News said, "I swear he makes up quotes just to make Republicans look bad."
A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."
These quotes were made up by the reporter as fluff and are used to make it appear he worked harder on the story than he actually did.
He can read anything I get...just hands off the coupons for pizza.
So you still think this is a "friendly" president?
I don't know where he finds the time, since I thought he spent most of his day in a basement listening in on our 70 billion daily phone calls.
This story is more a crock of shiite than the NY Times breathless eavesdropping stories.
But it sure reels in some fish, doesn't it?!
Name a war in which mail was not opened without a warrant. (None exists, you’re falling for NYT propaganda)
Interestingly enough USPS has "procedures in place" (which can mean devices or rules or practices) that serve to make your typical letter-bomb blow up where it can't hurt anyone.
Not sure that's a search, but do those suckers open up when they go off!
Letters with anthrax are another item we don't really need warrants for.
OK, this is a good start, and I don't think I like this, but I need more info on this besides one story with unnamed sources. I remember the brouhaha about the warrantless eavesdropping.
I'm goin to go and look around and see if I can find more info.
You just painted a perfect picture for the gullible.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, experts said.
I don't think mail should be searched w/out a warrant unless it's literally a ticking bomb.
He already has certain (very) limited authority that is recognized but not specifically described. Any chance he is - as you specify in one example - just declining to rescind this ability?
Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed.
Well, given that they got this wrong, what credibility for their description should be given?
I'm not sure why it's necessary for Bush to advertise these policies in advance. If he feels it's necessary and legal, then do it. Until then, don't talk about it.
Ya gotta figure. He probably finished dumping arsenic in wells sometime late in 05 and there are only so many seniors to be pushed down stairs. Yeah I suppose he has the time now.
Is there no depth to which they(MSM) will not sink?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.