Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant 714
don_combatant writes to note that President Bush claimed new powers to search US mail without a warrant. He made this claim in a "signing statement" at the time he signed a postal overhaul bill into law on December 20. The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. According to the article, "A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised a review of Bush's move."
OH NOES!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Separation of powers (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, and back on topic: Even the American Bar Association has described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as "contrary to the rule of law and our Constitutional system of separation of powers". When is the American public going to wake up on both sides of the isle here? From a Republican standpoint, this administration has gone so far off from Republican ideals, that it is not even funny. Republicans used to be the ones who were for a strong military, smaller government, less government intrusion into our lives and lower taxes and what we have is a military that is weaker and smaller now than it has been in decades, we have the largest federal bureaucracy in the history of the world, fewer Constitutional rights and lower taxes are only for large corporations. From the Democratic side, well..... those guys just got hosed for the last few years and they do not appear smart enough to position anyone capable enough to compete with someone even as unappealing and dangerous to our lives as Bush and Co.
I worry for our future as we have signed away many of our Constitutional rights and protections, we have alienated many foreign countries and allies after squandering perhaps the most support we've ever had in history after 9/11, we are entrenched in a combat zone that has very little positive outcome potential, we are signing away our financial future through one of the largest deficits in history and Cheney is on record as saying deficit spending does not matter.
IMPEACH - the only tag needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, who can argue that as the person in charge of enforcing the rule of law and "protecting the constitution" that George W. Bush is doing the exact opposite. He's not just not doing it he's actively working to undermine the entire idea of separation of powers and role of the executive branch.
Impeach.
Now.
=tkk
PS See you at GITMO!
Re:New Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress' main check on that power is the ability to impeach. If the President violates the laws or court decisions, then it's a "high crime and misdemeanor", and they can remove him. That's the nuclear option, but the Constitution forbids any other control. It's a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction.
In practice the President has always had to execute the laws more or less in line with what Congress said when they passed them, precisely because the nuclear option is sitting there. But Bush is discovering that really he can do whatever he wants, no matter what the law actually says. He likes to think he's doing it to preserve the security of the country, but I've got a terrible feeling he's destroying that village in order to save it.
The Character of State (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also the State which is increasingly introducing extra-judicial handling of terrorists - holding them indefinitely without trial, interrogation methods which are tantamount to torture, no access to lawyers, no publication of their status.
This is also the State which has been gradually extending extra-judicial methods (warrantless monitoring, for example) to citizens.
It is my view a State which fails to understand the importance of civil and human rights, for example in this case in its increasing intrusion in private lives, will, *as you would expect*, fail to apply those rights in other areas - in this case, justice for those accused of crimes and they way they are treated.
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now that he is directly countermanding the bills he passes, can we not finally admit that Bush has broken his oath as President?
but rather his view of the law.
Or are you claiming is that despite "his view of the law" he's not going to order anyone to open mail?
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:3, Insightful)
13. The right of the people to be secure in their papers and possessions against searches and seizures shall not be violated except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization.
No emphasis or "..." was needed. It's been fine for 2 centuries.
The important part the Mr. Bush is overlooking is "except by the authority of a proper warrant, signed by a judge, after jury authorization".
The current administration has removed or ignored almost every check and balance put in place by the founding fathers.
That's all fine and dandy, until the other team takes office and picks up where Bush and Co. left off.
The checks and balances are their for everyone's protection. Or at least they were.
Worst. President. Ever.
Honestly... (Score:2, Insightful)
But this is a president who was either lying or willfully ignorant to get us to wage a war in which the American people lost a lot of money and a lot of lives (and many times more Iraqi civilians) with no clear benefit to our country. And one consequence of this war was that some very good friends of people in his administration made a LOT of money.
So there is no benefit of the doubt any more for this President. Let's just hope that he and his friends will be satisfied with the thievery they have already accomplished and not attempt to take even more from us.
State of emergency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New Congress (Score:1, Insightful)
Primarily because the new Congress just got started, well, this morning (or was that yesterday? I get so confused these days...). The Dems also will not/do not have a concrete overriding 2/3rds majority, so they won't be effective (because Bush will exercise veto power whenever he damn well pleases).
Because Congress has no incentive to. Most people like to believe other people are bad (cynical view a la misery loves company) or likes to think that way to make themselves feel superior. They believe these protections do not apply to them. Or have a cause they believe in that is served however slightly by such actions (victim's rights and the like).
It seems many folks believe in causes, not principles, and it's been going on for some time (not a recent generation thing; the slip has been going on for awhile). The present line of thinking is get the bad guy at any cost, forgetting that those hunting often end up being the bad guys in the end.
If something favors them, people like it these days, even if it is blatently unfair (many examples, my present favorite one is senior citizens and property taxes in certain states). To that end, they vote for whoever kisses their ass and will help them econmically, and politicians know it and cater to those groups, thus majority only decisions are made even if it is detrimental to the whole.
Most people that have problems with the government are or have been jailed. Many do not have the right to vote.
We have a two-party system. See game theory (i.e. potentially why McCain lost in 2000 (or rather, never made it to the final two), see Lieberman in the most recent race).
Many people like membership. They like to call themselves Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Conservative, Republican, and all that. This ends up being a "my frat/sorority is better than your frat/sorority" crapfest, where if your party wins, it's a win, instead of the principles you back.
I hate Dean. I hate war. But the war in Iraq? Good start, bad mismanagement, it's a shithole, get out. For the amount of money we expended, we could have had health insurance for everyone in the US or solved our energy issues. Such examples are not exclusive to the federal level; in PA, something like $400 million is going to the "police" instead of economic revitalization--even though the latter reduces crime far more effectively, people still believe the reduction in violent crime occurs primarily due to a police force instead of people having better opportunities to live their lives.
etc. etc.
btw, I'm a Democrat, Republican, moderate Republican, conservative Republican, to 'hell with it you guys are all @#!% nuts leave me the hell alone' who has turned into a massive cynic, watching "authority" figures abuse the simplest things (like traffic and speeding violations, lying in court, no record magisterial systems, to DAs who should be up for ethics violations to doctors who shouldn't be doctors because they'd rather be paid then help more people) to major things (see somewhat recent Slate article on the 10 stupid ass things going on, cops shooting people in the back, not talking down hostage takers and blowing in doors to backing their frat I mean fellow officers, to corrupt pharmaceutical companies making billions while passive genocide occurs (HIV in Africa)) so to heck with it I ain't surprised everyone else higher up has turned into a "victim," to the point that people who really might need help are outshouted by those simply clamoring for more.
And yeah, I'm thinking about starting a bitchy website about all of this. As if that'll help.
Do YOU get it yet?
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand one might just shrug and say that governments don't need signing statements to be evil, so why does it matter.
Re:New Congress (Score:1, Insightful)
No, the Constitution provides one other control: Congress controls the money. If Congress decides to de-fund half the executive branch, then half the executive branch is fired.
The only executive branch offices mandated by the Constitution are that of President and Vice-President. Congress can do away with any other office, position, or agency any time they see fit. (except there's a general requirement to have a Navy, IIRC) Call it the "slash and burn" option.
Unfortunately, Congress would have to have a backbone to use that power. They don't, so they won't.
Gerald Ford condemned domestic surveillance. (Score:4, Insightful)
Where is Gerald Ford when our nation needs him to rescue us from a cowboy?
Re:Separation of powers (Score:5, Insightful)
A mortgage is considered an excellent investment, and it's deficit spending. In fact, many financial advisors will tell you to buy the biggest house you can afford, and pay it off slowly. That's because real estate is a good investment in general, what with the population continually rising. (Confusing matters a bit is that the tax breaks on mortgage interest make it an even better deal, though that's artificial.)
Similarly, a wise company will always have a debt: it borrows money to invest in itself and make new stuff to be even more profitable.
Mind you, all of this assumes you're investing in something valuable. Money borrowed and then wasted is the real evil. Blame the waste, not the borrowing. Cutting the borrowing is one way to limit waste, but Congress is particularly adept at finding ways to waste money. A favorite is to put the pork on the budget, deliberately under-funding something critical. Then when that runs out of money, they pass an "emergency appropriation", which doesn't count on the budget. (It shows up in the debt, though.)
Eliminating earmarks will help, but at $24 billion they're a drop in the bucket of a multi-trillion dollar budget. The real waste is in things like farm subsidies to agribusinesses and weapons programs the Pentagon doesn't want. Try cutting those, though, and watch people scream. Everybody wants the budget cut, except for the bits that come in to their state. Those are necessary.
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:5, Insightful)
No problem then: Bush has no intention of having his people going through the hassle of getting a warrant before opening your mail...
Another fucking Bush bashfest (Score:2, Insightful)
President Bush isn't claiming any new found Presidential power. Nor is he saying that the federal government is planning on opening a random 25% of private mail.
The entire article is extremely slanted and only down near the bottom is it revealed that Presidents have always had such power. The most telling part is when the spokesperson mention the "tick bomb" example and the very next sentence was 'Bush, however, cited "exigent circumstances..."'. Using the word "however" gives the impression that President Bush is adding onto the "ticking bomb" powers with lesser demanding circumstances. Completely false.
A slanted hit piece on President Bush and the majority of the readers here and knee-jerking about how President Bush is destroying every American civil right.
This MUST be a straw dog... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) About two minutes ago congress resumed with a democratic majority.
2) The democrats have vigorously opposed warrantless "wire-tapping" of telephone calls and emails seeking to intercept terrorist communications.
3) The "wire-tapping" technologies are top secret.
4) Today, democrats gain control of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Several new democrats will learn about the top secret technologies.
5) Once so educated, the democrats will privately, quietly drop their opposition to the warrantless "wire-tapping".
6) To save face, the democrats will publicly raise a furor over this specious, totally unimplementable idea of tearing open mail without warrants. They will eventually win the argument, and be able to claim that they "put the President in his place on an important issue of privacy invasion."
7) The monitoring programs will continue uninterrupted, unhindered, and finally, unthreatened by the democrats. George Bush will take a highly-public political loss and a highly-private factual win.
So that's my opinion, FWIW. Anyone who takes a dopey-looking Presidential action like this at face value is a fool. (I'll save all trolls the trouble and suggest the first reply: "Either that or I'm the fool.")
Recurring meme? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill Gates comments on robotics [slashdot.org]
and now:
George Bush comments on constitutional law
The scary part is that one of these is really dangerous.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
And I equally claim that Bush is not an ignoramus (Score:5, Insightful)
- Yet another reason to use encrypted email
- Yet another reason to impeach him [indymedia.org]
- Yet another reason to abolish presidential signing statements [sourcewatch.org]
- Yet another reason to 'not trust the government'
The constant barrage of unconstitutionality baffles me. This man just keeps adding and adding to the reasons why he's [commondreams.org] the [rollingstone.com] worst [littleindia.com] president [hnn.us] ever [washingtonpost.com].Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not so much legality as it is accountability. Try this scenario on for size: The FBI, CIA, or NSA (or some sect of one) begin opening up tons of United States Citizen mail without warrants. The reason doesn't matter at all, but just imagine they started opening up federal mail without warrants. If the American public finds out, there would be an outrage, much like the one about warrant less wiretapping and warrant less phone record data. There would be debates about what is legal and what isn't. But here's the catch. No matter which way the debate goes, no one who committed the crime will be held accountable. If the debate agrees with the signing statement, then the law is altered and everyone is cleared. But the scary part is, if the debate disagrees with the signing statement and the actions by the agency is agreed to be illegal the offenders will still get a pass because of the signing statement. It's not quite an executive-order, but it's pretty much an executive-commit-this-crime-for-free statement.
President Bush isn't trying to change the law. He's doing something much much worse. He's creating a process where by it can be ignored openly without accountability. If there is no accountability for violating the law, it will be violated.
No matter what happens in the end, a government agency who opens up mail from now on can refer back to the signing statement and will not be prosecuted. Their careers probably won't even be jepordized in the slightest.
Re:Separation of powers (Score:3, Insightful)
That would imply that the "War on Terror" is meant to have an end. I suggest to you that this is optimistic.
There notably isn't anything about the KKK in the article you link. But, for the moment, assuming this is true... that's an even stronger argument for limits on presidential power and preservation of civil rights -- because it's not about if you trust this president, it's about if you trust everyone who might ever be president.
Re:Separation of powers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tyranny (Score:3, Insightful)
trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied." -- Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801.
Re:He's like Superman! (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally very much disagree with a lot of his actions, and cannot wait for his term to come to an end, but I see him much more as a scared kid trying to fend off an attack that he can't see but knows is coming rather than a conniving, malicious dictator-wannabe.
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Bush has issued orders of magnitude more signing statements than any other sitting president is clear evidence that such behavior sits in his overall strategy, and the signing statements are to cover his bible-thumping, two-bit warlord ass when (if) we ever buck up and decide to run him out on a rail.
Only 9 out of 10 points (Score:2, Insightful)
"I think you meant the opposite of what you said, and based on that interpretation, here is an example proving you 'wrong'."
Finally, if you are a law abiding American citzen or law abiding resident then you should have nothing to worry about. However if you skirt the law, are a criminal, and in this country illegally then I say tough shit to you.
"Only the guilty need fear being hit with this large stick. And for your convenience, I have defined who the guilty are - the guilty are those who have done wrong."
Bravo. The only thing you left out is the part about knowing who has done wrong by hitting them with the stick and seeing who says "Ouch". Other than that, absolutely stellar!
Re:Another fucking Bush bashfest (Score:2, Insightful)
That makes it all better then.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did the American people ratify a new Constitution? Has the old one been burned?
No, and Yes.
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the sender not enjoy constitutional protection? (Assuming source is from US land)
From TFS: The signing statement directly contradicts part of the bill he signed, which explicitly reinforces (emphasis mine ~R) protections of first-class mail from searches without a court's approval. You have a 3 digit UID, and you still don't read even the summary?
He's not changing those rules, the People of the United States (via their elected representatives) passed a law explicitly stating that he cannot do what his signing statement says he intends to do.
He is directly stating that he will ignore those safeguards, on top of a law passed to restate the will of the people that he follow them. What is reasonable about a President saying directly that he intends not to follow a law the people thought it important enough to re-issue? What safeguards do you expect will be followed by a man who says he will not follow them?
Until he does this, this is irrelevant. That he could declare Martial Law does not grant him those powers before he does so. If/When he does, then this will likely trigger a very serious response from the previously apathetic citizens; this response is the risk and price of taking those powers. He doesn't gain the powers unless that risk is taken and that price paid.
~Rebecca
Re:Another fucking Bush bashfest (Score:3, Insightful)
1st Amendment - Free speech zones and suspected terrorist are not allowed to talk to the press because it might reveal information or incite violence
4th Amendment - Warrentless phone taps
5th Amendment - "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - GITMO
6th Amendment - "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." - GITMO
8th Amendment - ", nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - CIA Prisons
9th Amendment - "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" - All the excuses why he can get away with the rest
10th Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." - Signing statements in general
I guess we should just be happy that we have the 2nd, 3rd, and 7th left. There is a reason people have knee jerk reactions about Bush taking away civil rights, it's called conditioning.
You misread the article, at best... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, he is.
This is not at all true. Near the bottom, the article does not "reveal" that "Presidents have always had such power". It instead quotes a White House spokesman that doesn't even claim Presidents have always had such power, but instead that the Constitution does not forbid the government to engage in such searches. While this is certainly true, it is irrelevant: statute law can restrict the authority of the executive beyond the limits the Constitution places on the government. The Constitution places an outer limit on what the law may allow, but not everything that is within the scope permitted to the government by the Constitution is legal for the President, particularly when law is passed expressly forbidding the action at issue.
So that the Constitution permits warrantless searches in certain circumstances, and that those exceptions might apply to the mails as well, has no bearing here.
The fact is this: Bush is signing a law adding to the protection of first-class mail beyond what is obligatory under the 4th Amendment while claiming the right to ignore it in every case in which the provisions of the law aren't redundant with those of the 4th Amendment, directly in opposition to his oath and duty to faithfully execute the laws.
yeah, so am I (Score:5, Insightful)
The framers created the constitution and bill of rights because they were facing the type of threats that we are currently facing: totalitarian government control. Terrorism is the worst thing our country has had to face in possibly centuries, granted, and it needs to be dealt with directly. But, there is very clear evidence that the Bush family and their buddies want to make their stamp on history as not the regime which battled terrorism abroad, but as the team who brought the term "executive power" back into the oval office. Rumsfeld and Cheney both worked for Gerald Ford, and were appalled at the amount of power taken away from the executive branch after Watergate, and they supposedly blamed Ford for that. The absolutely phenomenal amount of liberties being shed under the flag of Fighting Terrorism, much of which has absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, etc, provide evidence to that end.
Do you feel safer since 9/11? Are you confident the Freedom Tower will stand forever because W can open your mail? Did hanging Hussein and killing 3,000 american soldiers as punishment for Hussein executing 148 Sunnis shut down the suicide-bomber factories? Don't even get me started on the irreversable damage done to the establishment clause...This is about control and power, not security.
That's why we can meet in groups and discuss politics without control. That's why we can protest in public. That's why we can carry guns. That's why we can publish information and criticisms of the government. Once you let those rights go (which W has been doing a great job on, summarily), it is really hard to go back; and if we can't discuss what our leaders are doing publicly and criticise them and protest their actions and not have to worry about if that letter to the editor of the Times was intercepted and "stored as evidence of terrorism", then we lose our quasi-democracy and become a full-fledged plutocracy/oligarchy, just like the one we went to war to split from in the 1770's.
Re:So sick of this crap (Score:5, Insightful)
>The men who wrote the Bill of Rights had absolutely no idea what kind of threats would be facing this country, and as such, their perspective is simply no longer valid.
I beg to disagree. The men responsible for the Bill of Rights, which took effect in 1791, were still around a few years later when our country was physically invaded by foreign troops. In fact, the chief author, James Madison, was President when the Brits marched in and burned the White House to the ground along with a few other important bits of Washington, DC. Since there were still plenty of Loyalist collaborators around, you could make the same arguments about opening mail, warrantless searches, etc. being in the interest of "national security." The biggest threat to our liberty then was the same as it is now, authoritarian government.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, of course not. Because technology oriented people never use or work with standard mail. It has nothing to do with you at all. Don't worry, it'll just affect those old people you see from time to time being wheeled into the rest homes. And those troublesome immigrants.
Same thing for phone taps, loss of habeas corpus, misuse of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws and punishments, free speech "zones", government support of religion, the prosecution of a war of aggression based on lies... none of these things have anything to do with you.
Hey, did you know Sony's PS3 won't play Blueray disks back in 720p?
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if you do this, they will loudly complain that all liberals (you may not actually be one, but if you disagree with them, you are in their eyes) are hateful and mean spirited. Never mind that they will bitch-slap you every chance they get and then when you complain call you a liberal cry-baby, or claim that they were "only joking."
Of course, this is a catch-22 because if you don't fight back then you look like a pussy. If you fight back with logic, you come off as a boring dweeb, not a gung-ho action man. If you fight back with emotion, you are a hate-filled wingnut.
The average right-winger has no introspection. In fact, it would only get in the way. He needs to convince others that his world-view is correct, and he doesn't care how he does it. Looking dispationately at his own behavior would only weaken him, so he just doesn't do it. This leads to some amusing conversations where the poor right winger appears not to even remember completely contradictory statements he made just moments earlier. Facts, logic, rationality and consistencey are all irrelevant to convincing others to believe in his twisted paradigm.
Pretty much any statement a right winger makes about others is actually, through psychological projection brought about by an extreme lack of introspection, a direct statement about that right winger. Gays are bad? He's gay. Welfare cheats are bad? He'd mooch off his dying grandma. Lazy immigrants a re a drain on the system? He's a lazy git who never worked harder than he had too in his life. Liberal bias? Conservatives own the majority of the media. Liberals lack morals? He has the morals of starving weasel.
In order to translate from right-wingenese to reality-speak, just assume that whatever a right-winger says to others actually applies to himself. Their world view is based on lies and manipulation so in order to validate themselves, they must spread those lies and the culture of manipulation and dehumanization that goes along with them. Ever wonder why they so frequently rant about "Humanism?" It's because they hate humans, themselves in particular. They see humans as greedy, immoral, sinful creatures only capable of civilization and cooperation so long as someone with a big stick is watching over them. That is not, in fact, the case for most of us, but it is the case for the average right-winger.
Thus, they need to spread their lunacy, in order to drag us all down to their level.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, thanks for the correction. I was using Probable Cause to mean Exigent Circumstance, when Probable Cause is only what you need to get a warrant, not bypass it.
Of course, we used to have a right to privacy of your person, which covered things like a diary. According to what I heard, this right was never written down, because the consitituonal framers considered it to be such an undeniable right, that it's not necessary to write it down. (After all, you're not required to testify against yourself, why should the government be able to use your diary against you then?) Although, no such right exists anymore, and your diary may be used against you, because it was never written down.
I've always thought that the 4th Ammendment was pretty clearly granting a right to privacy. If I turn "right to be secure against unreasonable searches" into a positive statement I get "right to privacy". That's what privacy is -- the right to not have people search through your business without justification. Also, it specifically states "right to be secure in their persons... and effects against unreasonable searches" which sounds to me like privacy of your person and any diary you might be carrying.
If that's not the case in practice, well, surprise surprise another of our Constitutional rights is trampled with hardly a murmor from the people. To me, that is exactly why cases like this are important. It's already bad enough how our Constitutional rights are ignored and denied us -- when the powers that be openly state that they do not intend to follow the Constitution, then the level of abuse is only going to be throttled up.
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:2, Insightful)
We live in a dictatorship. Bush can - and does - do anything he wants. His oath of office has been violated, he flouts the laws of the country, he holds prisoners without recourse to representation or even the opportunity to go in front of a judge, he tortures people, he lies to the public, starts wars of aggression, reads your mail, taps your phone...
The saddest thing is that no one is going to do anything about it. So I guess freedom and liberty were all just inertial effects we can thank the founders for. They're certainly gone now.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what I have always though about liberals. *OH WAIT!* Doh!
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
All of the law is mere "theory"; it is an idea. Yes, a government can choose to ignore the laws under which it governs, and rule by decree and force. But such a government undermines the foundations of its own power, for its legitimacy is founded on law. Do not underestimate the power of ideas; do not regard the law lightly. The time is coming--and it may be soon--when the people of this nation will realize that their government has become nothing more than a tyranny. Were they wise, the politicians would think on this--and tremble.
Re:Hmm.. 2nd Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not anti-gun, we're just anti- the pro-gun people such as yourselves who constantly pop up with off-topic comments like these, evangelizing about what we "really should" care about. Really, unless your plans involve yelling "Sic semper tyrannis!" while jumping off a balcony, how exactly would easy access to firearms prevent the Bush Administration from reading your mail?
"an armed public is the only way to have any level of resistance if a government becomes truly oppressive."
If a republic becomes "truly oppressive," it's already too late; there's little that easy access to firearms could accomplish other than make things bloodier. Rifles are meant to defend civilization, not to act as some sort of back-up plan if civilization fails.
"Yea, well, unarmed crowds really don't do so well against a M16 equipped military controlled by the government (need examples? see China, 1989)."
They're not limited to rifles. The example you cite famously involved tanks. They also have airplanes with bombs, artillery, and any number of mean and nasty ways to kill you without being anywhere near you. And a truly oppressive government, the bogey man you try to use, wouldn't just stop at killing the man who has an AK-47 in his hands, they'd also wipe out his family and several of his neighbors to use you as an example. The only recourse would be the ones that Islamist militants are trying to use against us now: throwing their own bodies into the gears of war in the hopes of getting enough dead bodies to jam up the machinery.
The Kurds had AK-47s. Sadam Hussein had Sarin. Guess who won?
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gerald Ford condemned domestic surveillance. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mods, are you kidding? Insightful? This should be +5, Funny. Ford's the guy that pardoned Nixon for things like this. Don't be fooled into thinking a bit of posthumous criticism means he's Bush's nemesis, actions speak louder than words, and Ford's actions clearly put him on Bush's side, not ours.
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Separation of powers/Constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Want to weaken some religious freedoms (abolishment of tax-free status). Anti-free speech during elections.
Repubs - Recently want to intimidate journalists in re Iraq War. Anti-free speech during elections.
I'm still waiting for someone to suggest, "Hey, think how much we can reduce crime if just make it illegal for people to assemble without a license! No more conspiracies!"
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Doing everything in their power to destroy this.
Repubs - Support in theory, but rarely in practice.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Not much action on this front.
Repubs - Not much action on this front.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Not as active against these as the Repubs, but not fighting the weakening of the rights much either.
Repubs - Warrantless wiretapping, mail reading, internet monitoring, support of broader police powers
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Supportive of recent Supreme Ct decision that private property can be taken for public use if it's a "better" public use.
Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests, where terrorism is undefined.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Who is trying to destroy what?
Dems - Maybe not instigators, but voted for most of the current administration's bills affecting the same.
Repubs - "Terrorism" related arrests again. Speedy? 3 years is speedy, right? Also not permitting habeus corpus for such defendants, nor counsel.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tri
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientific evidence shows that neither liberals nor conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned.
Apparently, both the left and the right and all adherents of a two party system make their political decisions with an IQ of 3. It is especially sad is that some of those IQ 3 decision makers are extremely intelligent when they get away from politics.
The rest of us only emit a sad sigh as these idiots put one corrupt and power mongering parasite after the next into office. We helplessly watch as you decide which rights and freedoms we must give up this week by picking an (R) or a (D). Both your R's and D's seek to strengthen the power of their level of government rather than keeping the government to the absolute minimum required for society to function. Both cater to corporate special interests rather than the interests of the people. I hope against hope in my little heart of hearts that one day political parties will be abolished, and congress will spend an entire year doing nothing but repealing existing laws that run contrary to the interests of the common man rather than tacking on new ones.
If you'd like to really run with it, you might even hope that candidates will be chosen according to merit and intellect rather than popularity and purchased academic honors. It seems the children of extremely wealthy old school money always come away with a masters from an ivy league school. They must all be brilliant eh?
End Rant
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:5, Insightful)
The distinction you are avoiding is between a war where someone like Bush Jr simply begins attacking a non-aggressive opponent for reasons economic (or imaginary), and a war where an attack is made to defend against such unreasonable actions (eg, Kuwait, WWII.) Aggression on the one hand, defense on the other. Got it now?
The "Gestapo", as you call our authorities, has arrested many, held them without recourse to representation or even a hearing before a court, tortured them. It has also tapped other's phones, opened their mail, put them secret lists (no-fly, for example), and censored them.
If you believe these crimes must be committed against me before I can legitimately object to them or characterize them as representing a negative trend, then I firmly disagree.
What The Hell Is Going On In The U.S.? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:4, Insightful)
Have the department of homeland security been by to arrest ANYONE yet? Yes? Then your logic is obviously dead wrong.
Believe it or not, everyone who posts on slashdot does not have to be posting from a prison cell before there is a problem. The 'gestapo been buy to arrest you yet' measure is also WAY the hell beyond where I draw the line. The right of the lowest citizen to privacy when he phone sexes his wife or even talks to her in a mushy tone he would never let outsiders hear while she travels abroad on work trumps the latest installment of Christians versus Muslims the crusades have returned.
The bill of rights, the right to privacy, the limitations of government powers, the Constitution requirement for warrants in searches (which would include searching my communications), and the right to stockpile and bear arms should the law be twisted to allow the creation of a mad religious regime to come into power are what this country is about. Without those things we would be better off reverting to English subjects than subjecting ourselves to own corrupt government and hypocrisy.
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, signing statements are no more legal than the line item veto, they just haven't been stricken down yet.
They're not legal for pretty much the same reason that line-item vetoes are illegal: the president is not granted the power to pick and choose the parts of the law that his branch of government executes. He either signs the whole law or vetoes the whole law. Once the law has been signed, he is obligated to enforce the law as it is written.
And speaking of the past usages of signing statements, did you know that President Bush has issued only a single veto since he took office, and has issued more signing statements [boston.com] than all other presidents combined? [wikipedia.org]
Also, if you reread the bit of the constitution that you quoted, you'll find that it doesn't list 'public safety' as a reason to declare martial law anymore than it says that it doesn't have to be declared (just exercised, as you seem to think). It says quite clearly that public safety may require the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion. Habeas corpus is not martial law. [wikipedia.org]
We are neither being invaded nor are we rebelling (yet), and since Bush and the executive branch haven't claimed to suspend habeas corpus (although they clearly have suspended it), there's no legal ground for the executive branch to act illegally. And beyond that, suspending habeas corpus doesn't imply that the government can act illegally, only that they can effectively jail people and not provide the body while the writ has been suspended. The GP was quite correct in saying that the government must be quite explicit about denying the writ and deal with the consequences thereof.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm simply obtuse, but I fail to see how a story entitled "Bush Claims Mail Can Be Opened Without Warrant" in a political section entitled "Your rights online" while the rest of slashdot pursues technical issues as per usual is in any way "putting our lives on hold otherwise."
I read the story, and commented (several times), because citizen's rights are a concern to me, having people's mail opened is a concern to me, and I'm definitely a "nerd." I find the idea that this issue is not important and/or inappropriate to the site or the particular section on the site to be nearly incomprehensible. Furthermore, "nerds", to me, is a collection of (mostly) pretty smart people with a fair amount of collective power; people, in other words, who I am interested in going over such issues with.
Your milage obviously varies. However... I suppose I have to ask: Why are you even reading the story? Did you fail to read the title, the section, the summary, or were you simply not interested in any of the technical topics offered to you today as alternatives to this story?
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, not all conservatives are the same, either. For example, some think the magical free market will fix everything, while others think the magical man in the sky will do it. Of course, none of them think they will be the ones to fix everything. Don't be ludicrous, that would require effort that isn't entirely selfish, and everyone knows that humans are completely selfish, right?
The problem with the magical free market is that it isn't free enough. If we just do away with all labor, environmental, safety and monopoly regulations, abolish all taxes and just let the most sucessful do whatever they please, then everything will magically work perfectly. Really. Trust us, why would we lie to you? Oh, to try to get you to pay for our mistakes? LALALALA I can't hear you! Personal Responsibility! Don't look behind that curtain over there, look over here! Morals! MORALS! MORALS!
Re:yeah, so am I (Score:5, Insightful)
On Jan 21, 2001 the US government turned its attention completely away from the Middle East and Muslim radicals. Their centerpiece, their entire focus became getting out of the ABM treaty so they could restart Star Wars development and deployment. During that time, one of Clinton's aids stayed on, trying to alert the administration to the dangers, but was given no traction. Think back to the 9/11 commission, and the August briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US." That too was ignored - iirc some fessed up to having seen it, others didn't. Even the unusually high levels of intelligence chatter noted during the summer of 2001 didn't get any significant attention or action.
Actually Bush isn't my #1 problem here, it's Condi Rice. When the report said, "Failure of imagination," it was HER job to connect the dots and do the imagining.
Did you see Clinton on the "attack interview?" From everything I saw, the Clinton administration was trying, was engaged in the Middle East and was paying careful attention to Muslim radicals.
As for feeling safer after 9/11, try reading what Bruce Schneier writes. First off, the stuff that has made the real difference after 9/11 has been cleaning out Afghanistan, and ordinary police work - perhaps extraordinary police work, but still police work. Only 2 things have really made air travel safer - locking cockpit doors and air travellers no longer expecting that they will be safe if they sit back like sheep.
For the most part, the crap - the intrusive datamining, the warrentless stuff, RealID, silly airport inspections haven't done SPIT to make us safer. They just annoy us, chew up money, and whittle away at the foundations of our democracy. One relevant term is "Security Theater" look like lot's happening when nothing effective is.
By the way, now that we're bogged down in Iraq, the Taliban is making gains in Afghanistan, undoing the effective work we did, there.
Some people seem to really have a bug up their orifices about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. He's no angel, he was doing things that he shouldn't have, the whole situation was a mess. But it wasn't worth what we've done to ourselves in the past few years.
Re:yeah, so am I (Score:5, Insightful)
Rubbish. Terrorism has been blown up to be the worst thing your country has had to face in centuries, it isn't the worst thing it ground. I also seem to recall a long and destructive civil war being fought in the in the 1860s. I believe 2 world wars were fought in the 20th century, with over half a million deaths of US has had to face in centuries. I seem to recall your country was invaded by the British in 1814 and the white house was burnt to the soldiers (combined). I've heard something about a great depression. I seem to recall a significant threat from communism, both idealogical and physical.
I also remember an American president facing a real threat saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". You now have an American president facing a minor threat whipping the contry into hysterical fear.
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:5, Insightful)
I have personally been affected by the no-fly list even though I am not a target of the government campaign of "better security".
Every time I go to the airport to travel I expect to wait an extra while during the time they freak out over my name (which is very common actually) and then realize I'm not in my 40's and my middle name isn't the same as the other person (just the same initial). Then they apologize for the delay and I go on my way.
The first time was cute, but it happens every single time I go to the airport. I don't bother trying to use the automated baggage drop off teller because it won't let me without over ride from them so I always go to the counter first.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would suggest that your comparison is ill-chosen. Cars are technical; hence, a likely (and often-seen) subject for slashdot. Even though there isn't a section specifically for cars, as far as I know.
Rights, on the other hand, are an area of human activity that intersect with technical issues in significant ways. As such, I have high confidence they are both appropriate for slashdot, and the bulletin board of your computer science department.
On slashdot, the powers-that-be have given at least tacit recognition to the idea by providing a section, a home, as it were, for these kinds of issues.
Even though that may not be the case in your CS department, I suspect that should GWB decide by means of a "signing statement" that every program you write in school is the property of the US Government, that fact could find its way to your bulletin board, and legitimately so.
What I am getting at here is that some subjects include other subjects whether we'd prefer they didn't, or not. Our rights, or lack thereof, affect everything we do. Accordingly, I'm not sure there is a venue where I could be convinced they were inappropriate as subject matter. Online, we have an opportunity to categorize such issues, at least generally, and slashdot has done so - right here. That doesn't make rights issues inappropriate elsewhere, but it surely gives them a legitimate home here.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how private and intimate that you expect a piece of written material to be, the act of writing it down opens it up for legal use, against anyone, even yourself.
As such, NEVER write about anything illegal you may have done, whether in your diary or not, no matter how secret you believe it may be kept or not. I know some people use a different language for their diary, as such Esperanto is a common choice (despite being intended to be a language that everyone speaks, relatively few people actually speak it), but this is a trivial security layer (you can believe that a lawyer would be able to find someone who speaks Esperanto sufficiently to translate for the court, or any language for that matter).
Using encryption will only get you as far as the encryption algorithm is strong, so you should have chosen a key, and algorithm strong enough to protect the information for at least the statute of limitations on the activity you're writing about.
Now, I'm not trying to tell criminals here how to avoid prosecution, I'm trying to tell people how to keep their personal thoughts and beliefs personal, and not have them used against them possibly in a court of law. If you write in your diary, "God, I hate my husband, he's so mean to me, and I feel like I just would like to shoot him!" And he ends up shot, guess what? If they come across it, it's not going to look good for you, especially if you say something like that almost every day.
If you want something to be private and not used against you in court, leave it in your head, period. And I certainly hope that if technology comes along so that even that information doesn't remain private, that the courts will certainly rule against compelling defendents to subject themselves to disclosing such private information, and determine it to be testifying against onesself. Also, as I mentioned above, the same does not follow for a diary.
Why do we let him? (Score:2, Insightful)
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
--------
"Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category"
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html [infoplease.com]
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: "unreasonable" (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it has been proven that counts have been drastically wrong in a large number of districts and it has been shown that the opportunity and technical feasibility existed to rig the elections in those districts. There is a mountain of evidence to support a claim of Republican electronic vote tampering in the last presidential election. You make it sound like things went smoothly. That is ignoring the dubious circumstances of the first Bush election. With everything that went on there, I wouldn't have been comfortable with any result. You can shake a pinball machine to gain an unfair advantage, but if you shake too much the machine will register a tilt. Sometimes you lose the ball or miss the shot despite shaking the machine. It is likely that someone was shaking the machine during the elections, but the democrat vote was such a landslide that it overcame the advantage.
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing!"
I just filled out a petition to initiate the impeachment process against Bush for the undisputed violation of at least 4 US Codes of Law, the Geneva convention, and the Constitution. I showed this to 10 other people. All of them agreed that Bush should be impeached. They were all afraid to put their names on the paperwork. This wasn't some underground anti-government group or a like-minded club. These are separate individuals. They were literally afraid that they would be persecuted like others have.
If you say the wrong keywords on your phone conversation it will be wiretapped without judicial oversight and anti-American (read anti-bush) sentiments CAN get you investigated. Bush has empowered himself to have you arrested without being charged and detained indefinitely without trial. Who knows how many times he has used this? By definition nobody is informed, if someone is arrested this way they simply disappear. After being detained without charge or trial, Bush has empowered himself to literally torture you.
It sounds crazy. Like something out of a sci-fi novel or something but its not. All of this fact and is not even debated. Bush actually has the nerve to admit all of this publicly. He claims he has the right to do all this because congress said he could go in Iraq. Congress does not have the authority to allow Bush to conduct searches of mail and communications without a warrant, that is Constitutional Law and would require an amendment.
Hey maybe you support prayer in school. Maybe you don't want to see tax hikes or want smaller government. Strong support of the right to bear arms? Perhaps you feel that abortion is murder. That's great. Some of those things I agree with, some I don't. Others I might agree with the principle but believe in a different solution. But don't back this bloodthirsty madman who wants to set himself as a dictator just because he has an (R) by his name on the television screen. Unless you actually want to see things move to the point where even a slashdot post can get you arrested people like Bush need to be put down hard. The moment you have LESS rights there is a problem, as time goes on you should have MORE rights, not less. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the people who died and lost loved ones there. My family before me fought in Vietnam, WWII, the civil war, and the revolution. MY forefathers spilled blood and puss in the mud so that I would have the freedoms I enjoy. I am not willing to give up any of those freedoms because I am afraid of some terrorist and need GWB to protect me. Our forefathers were at war with over 60% of the population loyal to the other side. Instead o
Re:Obligatory quote (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is when he hears muffled screams coming from the trunk; when there's reason to believe that a delay to get a warrant may cost a life.
Re:yeah, so am I (Score:3, Insightful)
What a wildly improbable if you've got there. Clinton was the one at least trying to find, capture or kill bin Laden (and was accused of wagging the dog for it). The current administration sat on their hands until 9/11. And you suggest that Clinton would have gone passive after 9/11?
And since you mention money, who was the congressman most responsible for the shutdown of BCCI in 1991, the money laundering bank for drug traffickers and terrorists? That's right, John Kerry. A bit of a doofus sometimes, but he made a difference back before even the first WTC bombing.
As for many of the top planners being snuffed...maybe so. Give Bush a C on that count if you like. Gotta get something for taking out the #3 guy in al Qaeda so many times.
Re:OH NOES!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
In order to translate from right-wingenese to reality-speak, just assume that whatever a right-winger says to others actually applies to himself.
The rest of your post is flamebait, but this is actually almost 100% true, at least for the politicians on the right.
Seriously. Look at the last 40 years of Republican presidents. Name me one beside Ford that didn't break the law in a fairly obvious manner. I mean explicit laws passed to control their behavior that they then blatantly broke. Nixon with invading Cambodia, Reagan and H. W. Bush with Iran Contra, W. Bush with...um...everything.
Now let's look at the investigations. Nixon started things off, then...well, Ford pardoned him. Reagan and H. W. Bush were investigated, Bush fired the investigator when he got into office. W. Bush, of course, hasn't been investigated at all, for anything, thanks to the Republicans.
Conclusion: Republican Presidents break the law.
Now, on the other side, we have Carter and Clinton. Carter didn't do anything, and wasn't investigated that much, but possibly the Republicans were still getting up to speed.
Clinton, of course, was investigated constantly, and I mean constantly. Every single damn thing he did, they investigated, and we all know how that ended up. That perjury, and misleading the court during the Paula Jones case, were the only things that he was actually found to have done, although he did settle the sexual harrassment claim out of court eventually.(1) They investigated the White House Christmas card list, they investigated Whitewater, they investigated whether or not the Sock's the Cat fan club was using government resources. They managed to get the right-wing talk radio wackjobs, which they had just invented, to accuse him of multiple murders with regard to Vince Foster, although they intelligently didn't actually investigate that.(2)
Conclusion: Republicans, after 40 years of their own party's presidential lawbreaking, are projecting that lawbreaking onto Democratic presidents. Republican politicians keep this at somewhat sane levels, Republican mouthpieces feel free to get as crazy as possible.
And that's not the only instances of the Republicans doing what psychologists call 'projection'. Seriously, at times, it's almost surreal. Does anyone remember the 'Contract with America'? Anyone remember number one on the list? 'A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.'. It's almost cute.
In fact, do you remember that whole election cycle, how they kept talking about lobbyists and professional politicians?
1) Which doesn't mean he was guilty. The courts had actually dismissed the charges by that point, because even if her story was 100% true, she hadn't demonstrated that she was actually damaged by it, which I personally agree with. But she had appealed it, and it looked like the appeals court might undismiss it. However, all that's sorta moot, as none of that had anything to do with the presidency.
2) They also investigated Al Gore, and actually managed to catch him in a few things, like using his official phone to make non-official calls, which I'm sure is right up there legally with 'illegally invading Cambodia' and 'selling cocaine to finance the overthrow of Iran'. I mean, I sometimes print personal stuff using work printers, and just last election cycle I was able to hire assassins to take out the sheriff using proceeds from my meth lab, allowing me to install my own puppet in the sheriff's office. Who hasn't bent the law in some way or another?