W pushes envelope on U.S. spying New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail BY JAMES GORDON MEEK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned. The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush 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, say experts who have reviewed it. 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-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." Most of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act deals with mundane reform measures. But it also explicitly reinforced 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 longstanding 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 the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed. Martin said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html
Congress doesn't need to impeach, but they do need to enact legislation to counteract a number of Bush's signing statements, including this one, and the one on torture.
Bush - "This is why I wanted line-item veto. Because there are some words in this bill that I don't like." "Which words?" Bush - "Namely the word not."
i disagree. they need to get this scumbag out of there and put his ass on trial along with the rest of his criminal administration. everyday that bush remains in office is dangerous for america and our way of life.
but the only people who would care about their mail being opened are terrorists!!! Terrorists, I say!!!! 9/11! Freedom!!!
obviously, if one rat goes they all do. i did say bush and "the rest of his criminal administration" should be put on trial - that would include lord cheney.
agree 100%. you guys can all say i'm just a sucker or whatever, but i don't see how this affects me in any way. mail ain't that important. i guess terrorists will have to use UPS
This isn't suprising. What I'm watching is whether the 110th congress takes action to remove these measures. I betcha they don't.
when something the govt does does affect you . . . don't say a d*mn thing Rocket River freedom is never really taken by leaps and bounds . . it is taken in bit size increments
More frustrating than the actual fact that President ok'd snooping of mail is the fact that he did it through a damn signing statement. Those were originally just statements and comments but this administration is treating them like full blown executive orders only instead of applying to federal affairs, it acts like normal legislation. If there's one thing the Democrats should do in these "100 hours" is speak up against the absurd use of signing statements and curb the president's power.
I'm curious as to where you find bias in the fact that Bush signed a "signing statement" giving him the authority to circumvent a law that would put you or me in jail if we decided to break?
i see what you guys are saying, but i, unlike most people, have not forgotten what happened 9/11. my interest is in seeing that nothing close to that ever happens again and if it means that my mail could get looked at, well i don't really give a ****. fine by me. it's the price we pay to stay safe over here. there are limits of course, but i don't feel like the legislation since 9/11 has been unwarranted. and yes i realize that this is not "the" popular opinion. just my $0.02
If you can't see how blatantly biased that article is, you are clearly drunk off of Nancy Pelosi's vodka or something. Here on the other hand, is the associated press story on this signing, minus the slanted attacks the NY daily news writers added in their report. Note the drastic difference when you get your news from a respected news source with no agenda to push. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/010507dnwashmail.1f5f7e7.html Bush signing statement may allow mail opening without warrants 05:48 PM CST on Thursday, January 4, 2007 Associated Press WASHINGTON – 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?" Beeson said the group is planning to file a request for information on how this exception will be used and to ask 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." Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who guided the measure through the Senate, called on Bush to clarify his intent. The bill, Collins said, "does nothing to alter the protections of privacy and civil liberties provided by the Constitution and other federal laws." "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and our federal criminal rules require prior judicial approval before domestic sealed mail can be searched," she said. 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, and noted that Bush used 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, postal officials are allowed by law 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 has 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.
