Is This A Step Closer Towards Facism In US?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ktmexc20, Jan 5, 2007.

  1. Someone needs to put a cap on this President's abuse of power, imo.
    The President has been legislating from the executive branch through these "signing statements".
    This is not what the founding fathers had intended in their model of separation of powers.
    Nixon would be proud though.


    New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail.
    President Bush added a "signing statement"
    in recently passed postal reform bill
    that may give him new powers to pry into your mail
    - without a warrant.

    W Pushes Envelope On U.S. Spying

    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.
  2. americans have been dumbed down to the point where not only would less than 2% of the population recognize these great words, the other 98% when hearing them could easily be convinced they were uttered by a terrorist and represent hate speech.

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    it is sad but ET is a microcosm of today's society at large. posters like neodork, vermin77, and captainstupid, were never introduced to these great documents and truly do not understand their meaning. they think by agreeing with bill oreilly's jingoistic blathering they are the cutting edge.
  3. Oh shut your dumb trap ratgirl...

    You must have something to hide. I bet you are an Arab.

    Or at least a Muslim. Maybe a Afro-American Muslim?
  4. The content, remember? Again, you fail.
    Although we know your stance, please give us your version 77 of the truth and respond to the content. Please?

  5. they didn't cover this on the GED.
  6. Yes they did. At the age of 29 I finally got my GED after working hard
    for 8 years to get it. Toughtest thing I ever did besides the 1st grade.

    They taught us the US is completely Fascist and Herr Bush would
    always be known as the Father who brought about the most
    important changes and there was no way to fight it.

    Heil Bush....:p

    I can hardly wait to make ashtrays out of people's skulls...:cool:
  7. Don't people realize that by allowing all this corruption of our basic principles and rights, that we are letting the Terrorists win, yet again?

    The real extremest terrorists are simply gangs, smaller and more poorly armed than even the most basic drug gangs. We haven't had to resort to destroying the Bill of Rights to fight them, why in Hell do we have to against these idiots?

    We fought the Cold War for decades while maintaining our rights. This is so very sad.

  8. Islamic fanatics want to bring weapons of Mass destruction to
    America. If we can not stop them by finding them first, not matter
    how we do this... then many will die. More than you think possible.

    Better to lose a little of your freedom than see many die.

    Drug gangs do not go around blowing up buildings, busses and trains.

    And they are not planning what is to come next either...
  9. To keep this in perspective

    In my house we have a full fledged dictatorship. I am the supreme leader, maker of laws, and local god of justice.

    I have my own chair, that YOU can't sit in, and you had better not drink my last beer.

    Although I see myself as a benevolent dictator, people who violate my local ordinances are brought to justice quickly. This last summer my next door neighbor was found guilty of the "do not touch my newspaper" law. She was sentenced and hit with three pretty good sized water balloons the next day. The old gal didn't like it much I can tell you but she has left my paper alone since then.

    Personally I don't care if President Bush reads my mail as long as he does not violate my local laws. If he comes to my house he and his secret service personnel had better bring their own beers.

    Thank you,

    Here is a short list of My Local Laws

    1. No salesmen
    2. No Idiots
    3. No little yapping dogs
    4. Don't stop to look at the pretty horses
    5. Don't drive off the main road
    6. Don't touch the equipment
    7. Don't arrive un-announced
    8. Leave my newspaper alone
    9. Don't park in front of my car
    10. Don't sit in my chair
    11. Don't drink my last beer

    Thats it.
  10. OK, if that is the premise (a valid one), then let's do it correctly. Not by turning Iraq into a training ground, both sides of the aisle agree that the Terrorists are better off because of the Iraq debacle. This is pretty hard to do against an enemy made up, in large part, by the fear instilled in all of us by our current administration. I said in part, I am well aware that any group can blow up buildings, and think we should work to fight them, but reading our mail seems a bit off the mark.

    #10     Jan 5, 2007