This Story is Archived
New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 9 months agoPresident Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
Read Full Story at nydailynews.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 756
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
TechnologyExpert
Jan. 4, 2007, 12:40 p.m.Wow. I hope Americans realize how our personal freedoms are being taken away, bit by bit.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jeffery1
Jan. 4, 2007, 6:59 p.m.And for what? This administration, with full Republican support, hasn't done one thing right! Nothing!
All the apologists rail about how we need this type of Big Brother to keep us safe and they roll over. The problem is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that this has anything to do with our security because it wasn't until 2001 that al Qaeda attacked after the Trade Center bombings in 1993. That was eight years of Democrat rule that was just as safe as this Big Brother Republican rule has been but without the Big Brother and loss of rights.
Bush and his apologists have produced no evidence that we need to allow them to enter our lives to keep us safe.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Amazing1
Jan. 4, 2007, 7:29 p.m.And they keep pumping out the stuff of fear so that we will sit still for their shenanigans. "if you don't let me read your mail, the terrorists will get us."
Bah. This whole administration needs to be impeached NOW before they do any further damage. This is supposed to be government OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE.
AAAGGGHHH!!!!!!!!
-
-
Avg rating: (+9/-3 6)
mabombardier
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:37 p.m.Why is it that the people no longer get to vote on what we want? We have all of these PAID representatives, congress, and senators, yet they don't vote or do as we wish.
I wonder how many jobs it would create to have permanent voting stations nation wide that "We the People" could do the actual voting on a daily basis? It would probably be cheaper than paying the inflated salaries of our "officials", and the true voice of America would be heard. If it isn't cheaper, then so be it........money WELL spent!
Maybe, just maybe, if Americans actually saw that they could and do make a difference, and that their vote really does count for something, they would get out there and vote for whats right. Our constitution says that if this government doesn't work, a new one can be started. Hmmmmmm
(now stepping off of my soap box)
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Ratskii
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:57 p.m.hmmm, then we'd be an actual democracy. What a thought.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sleuth
Jan. 5, 2007, 9:57 a.m.The governmental system ordained by the constitution is a "constitutional republic" not a democracy. There is a common misconception that the US governmental system is a democracy. NOT SO!!
I wish that the public schools were still required to teach US government and that students were required to pass the course before being allowed to graduate HS and vote in a US election!
Sleuth
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:08 a.m.Whether it is a democracy or a republic is irrelevant to this issue. The intention of the restrictions on government as listed in the Bill of Rights and interpreted according to the reasoning of the time as captured in such documents as Mill's "On Liberty" clearly leads to an interpretation that Bush has, on multiple occassions overstepped his authority.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
FloridaGuy
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:16 a.m.In Illinois... they must pass that test in 8th grade and 12th or they do not graduate. It didn't help. They still elected Mayor Daley of Chicago!
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
tommmmie
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:44 p.m.We only have a short time to deal with this ludicris administration. I just hope the next administration, whether dem or repub, will eliminate or prosecute the criminals that are running the country today, and we all can be proud of the U S again.
-
Avg rating: (+3/-10 -7)
Candida
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:24 p.m.Not a bad idea in theory, but would you have the time and energy to familiarize yourself with all the issues sufficiently to make informed decisions? Most people don't seem to think or inform themselves even when the elections roll around.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
spikecwc
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:46 p.m.The comments posted here are a perfect example of what you said.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ramblingwreck
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:42 a.m.mabombardier, while I agree with your sentiment and acknowledge that the Constitution does indeed give the American people the right to change their government, your proposal would require a constitutional ammendment since you would be altering the authority of the Congress and the Presidency....therefore, don't hold your breath.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
HMTKSteve
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:43 a.m.The USA is a representative republic, not a democracy.
Democracy is the WORST form of government as it is nothing but mob rule.
Was it Franklin who said, "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner while liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote." ???
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:09 a.m.Again, this debate of whether we have a republic or democracy is not relevant to assessing whether Bush exceeds his authority.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sandokan
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:31 a.m.Bravo, it is obvious to all but the most ignorant of humans that Bush's hidden agenda is slowly coming to daylight. He has exceeded his authority so often and so cleverly that his daddy Rove must be happy.
-
Avg rating: (+4/-2 2)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:57 a.m.He's an addict with the typical addict's fantasies of unlimited power unleashed on the US and the world. If they don't do their therapy, even when they stop taking the drugs, they still have the fantasies. Exercising power is his new drug of choice. I'll bet you $100 we will see exercises in power like this increase in rate over the next two years. It would be typical addictive behavior.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 4:23 p.m.The most common underlying psychological dynamic of addicts, especially alcoholics is fantasies of unlimited power, usually to soothe the pain of an narcissistic injury. It's just the research, sorry. And you would expect that once they get on a power trip they will find increasing excuses to exercise and reinforce their power. If Bush follows the pattern, then each time he is criticized in the press, he will harden his defenses and resolve that some day he will be a vindicated martyr of the American people, and he will exercise even more controlling policies and interpretations of the law. If you want to test my hypothesis start a behavioral chart on the rate of negative press and the timing and rate of his exercising increasingly controlling policies. The Russians are keeping such charts, Pavlov was one of theirs, they will be experts at this charting, probably some CIA shrink is as well...lol. Prove me right or prove me wrong. The data is available...lol
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)
mabombardier
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:14 a.m.I don't really think its about whether Bush has done anything. Yes he is a game player, but just one player in a huge game.
We have given our government way toooooo much power. There is now no way to reign them in even a little. We have such optomistic views of our newly elected to fix the existing, but the majority preach one thing and do another.
This government isn't in place to care for its people anymore. It there to let the big man get bigger and the little man gets swallowed up and spit out with the trash.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jeffery1
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:34 a.m.HMTKSteve,
The U.S. is a democracy but NOT a majoritarian democracy, as you allude to. It is a democracy in which the rights of the individual trumps the tyranny of the majority. James Madison intended that the courts would strike down laws that infringed upon our rights; James Madison intended the courts to be "activist" in enforcing our rights.
Therefore, the majority is constrained via the courts so the majority cannot constitutionally act as a mob.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
protoham
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:49 a.m.Let me ask you, if a Box with your address on it is Ticking do you want me to deliver it to you or do you want me to x-ray it to make sure it is just a clock.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
gregshortdotcom
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:29 a.m.Excellent example! People are missing the "in case of emergency" part.
-
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
jeffery1
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:36 a.m.Who defines "emergency"? That is where the courts come in, to ensure that it is an emergency. As it stands right now, your ticking package can already be dealt with by regular law enforcement.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
gregshortdotcom
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:41 a.m.Good point, but there may be other, less obvious instances. Say, for example, someone is suspected of terrorism and they happen to send a letter to you. If I were you, I would sure want the President (as if he would do it himself) to open it instead of me.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jeffery1
Jan. 5, 2007, 12:33 p.m.The problem with your argument is that to read your mail they would already have had to identify your sender/recipient as a suspect terrorist. This means that they can get a warrent.
There is no circumstance that an emergency can arise that would fall outside the bounds of existing laws. A good example is letter bombs. If the postal service finds something odd it can now call in law enforcement under existing laws with the legal protections in place.
The "emergency" argument already exists and the law already provides for it. What Bush's illegal signing statement allows for is spying on us, without any just cause.
And his signing statement is illegal because the law was written and passed by Congress and the President signed it as it was written by Congress. He cannot change the law except by going through Congress. If he goes through our mail outside existing laws, he is breaking the law and is a criminal.
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
gregshortdotcom
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:25 a.m.Oh, you can still vote on what you want. But, as always, it doesn't mean a damn thing. Nothing has changed.
-
-
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
m-simon
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:51 p.m.Really there is nothing to fear. The Iranians are just kidding about Death to America.
Nothing to fear at all.
Really.
Reminds me of the days of that Austrian Corporal with the cute mustache. What was his name?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Ratskii
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:03 p.m.I know a lot of people have already mentioned this, but its stands restating.
'Those who would give up liberty to gain a little security, will not gain nor deserve neither.
Benjamin Franklin
Anyone who reads history widely should be able to see that it is just as possible for one's own government to pose a threat to a people's security as it is for foreign powers to do so.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Bkumm
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:16 p.m.Regulated, not armed. And it will do little good. The military has tanks and air power, we do not. Here it is in full:
"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."
Just trying to help.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Searunner52
Jan. 5, 2007, 1 a.m.Do you honestly believe that our military, given how interconnected they are with todays society and aware of exactly what is going on within the Nation, would actually defend the actions of the clown in the WH to the point of firing on their fellow citizens.
This is no longer the 1970 and Kent State!
-
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:40 a.m.I would never have imagined that our military would not have resigned en masse in protest over such an incompetently planned war. I would never have imagined they would stay on to get their retirement before they came out publicly to denounce Bush and Rumsfeld's incompetency. I would never have imagined that they would allow torture to be "Officially" deemed as acceptable and institutionalized. I would never have imagined that I would hear a 3-star who didn't supervise his prisons properly whine to the press about how it "ruined him", he should have been in that prison inspecting every other week and his Assistant Commander should have been there on off weeks. I would never have imagined that a Brigadier would allow an interview with the Spanish press and blame the problems on Rumsfeld rather than walk her resignation to Congress and testify in house. I've seen our military do several dishonorable things in the past 6 years.
-
Avg rating: (+7/-2 5)
Searunner52
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:56 a.m.Perhaps the reason that many haven't is that they still believe in and honor the Oath they raised their right hands and swore! Even when their CIC has betrayed that very Oath many times over!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:12 a.m.I agree, many still honor their Oath and yes the CIC has betrayed his many times over. We who did or who are serving lived by and know the Oath thoroughly, we recognize someone who has violated it...and Bush has.
-
-
-
mike532Comment has been removed: User banned.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Searunner52
Jan. 5, 2007, 6:58 a.m.While what some of what you say is true I feel that you are doing our men and women in uniform a grave disservice.
Back in the late `60s and early to mid `70s those in the military were fairly well insulated from what was going on in the civilian world and what news they did receive was heavily filtered. It was just this type of isolation that allowed what happened at Kent State to take place.
Today the situation is radically different. Almost without exception every man and woman in uniform has a cell phone and they are in constant contact with their family and friends. Even in the hostile environment of Iraq our troops are able to communicate with the outside world. This means that rather than being politically isolated they are very much aware of what is going on. I, for example, talk with my son, currently in Iraq on his 3rd tour, and many is the time we discuss what is happening in the States politically and he shares the views of many in his unit with me. (cont)
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Searunner52
Jan. 5, 2007, 7:13 a.m.(cont)
It is for this reason I say that what happened then has a lesser chance of happening now. Not that it couldn't or even might for there are those that have drunk deeply of the kool-aid.
What is a far more likely scenario is the employment of private security companies - Like Blackwater for example (http://ww...">http://www.blackwaterusa.com/)">(http://ww... - to do the bidding of Georgie Boy and this raises a far more frightening spectre as their loyality is to their paymaster first and Country second. The only plus in the equation, if there is one, is that their numbers are limited.
It has been stated by various organizations and groups that there are between 80 and 100 million gun owners in this Nation with many owning a number of different weapons in all classes and calibers, who are not going to sit by and watch some wannabe dictator take over this Country.
Personally I hope it never comes to this point because it will mean the death of this great Nation!
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ramblingwreck
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:47 a.m.Searunner52: Back in the late `60s and early to mid `70s those in the military were fairly well insulated from what was going on in the civilian world and what news they did receive was heavily filtered.
ramblingwreck: I beg your pardon. I was in the military from 1969 to 1979 and always had free access to any news source I chose to peruse or watch. There was absolutely no filtering of any information commonly available via the news media. Even while stationed overseas, we had free and easy access to multiple sources of news.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sandokan
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:44 a.m.Hate to disagree with you, but you're wrong about the military being insulated from what was going on in the civilian world. That is just not true. Obviously you didn't serve during those time periods, nor have you ever served in the military. I can say that because of your statements. You have a picture of the troops being stuck in some kind of a base with no way of knowing what is happening in the real world. Do you think that we didn't have radios or tv's back then? There were so many phone booths in CONUS bases it was ridiculous. Almost everyone recieved newspapers from their own states, sometimes free of cost - being in the military did have its benefits. We also recieved free issues of Playboy and just about all the major mags then ...in the dayrooms. Kent State was a result of a panic stricken National Guard Unit. If the RA had been there, nothing would have happened. So Kent State was the result of a badly trained NG Unit. Today that would be unthinkable.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sandokan
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:36 a.m.Interesting theory MIke, however what evidence can you bring to show that the Pentagon has been "trying to turn our troops into right wing religious fnatics." Not to insult your thread, but it is a little too far-fetched.
-
mike532Comment has been removed: User banned.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 3 p.m.I don't know how wide spread it was and how much the press blew it out of proportion but there was the case of a USAF Academy Lt. Col. instructor 'preaching' evangelical notions on his students and seemingly going out of his way to embarass students with other beliefs. He was repremanded and the commandant of the school issued instructions halting such behaviors...or so it was reported in the press.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Inquisitor
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:05 a.m.Just as Vietnam and now Iraq are proving, conventional forces cannot prevail in a guerilla war. Just ask the Russians about Afghanistan. Also, there are between 80 and 100 MILLION armed U.S. citizens. Shoot the officers first!
-
Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)
protoham
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:42 a.m.You are right, the only way to deal in a war like this is with NUKES.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sandokan
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:48 a.m.Vietnam & the Iraq LIC are not scenarios depicting how conventional forces are unable to prevail against guerilla forces (non-state affiliated forces).
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:37 p.m.You will be accused of sedition and of being a terrorist and will disappear in the middle of the night to be held indefinitely without charges...you'll never have the chance to even pull the trigger on that gun of yours or order the militia to formation.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:16 a.m.go read your Bill of Rights. The right to not be held without charge is one of the rights guaranteed.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:30 a.m.Excuse me? Does anyone remember a little town in Texas where a guy who thought he was Jesus, was cooked in his own home?
If you call a troop of citizens out in public armed with the intent on overthrowing the government, REALLY, how do you think you will be handled? There wont be a single person in America that will come to your defense when all of your rights are stripped away and you are thrown into a dungeon. That is if you are even still alive.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 11 a.m.The law says it must be handled using due process...not by throwing people into secret prisons indefinitely without charges.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Bacalao
Jan. 5, 2007, 12:28 p.m.unless of course you are declared an enemy combatant. Then you are now an ex-citizen and have no rights whatsoever. Welcome to the new-Amerika, where even citizens are losing their rights.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 3:04 p.m.Proof that you are an enemy combatant and traitor, if you are a citizen, is required using due process in a US court of law...or at least that's how it used to be before Bush took over. The criteria for treason, desertion, etc. are pretty well spelled out. That's why is't called Unauthorized Absence rather than desertion or treason. The unauthorized absence is an empirical fact. The proof that it is desertion requires proof of an intent on the part of the suspect. So it is with being a traitor. There are proofs that are required and before one is declared an enemy combatant those proofs must be "proven" using due process. Bush doesn't seem to get the law very well.
-
-
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:46 p.m.Whatever, I think you are the one that said they would, so after they burn your house down with you in it, then they will give you a fair trail.
Heck, Even Sadaam got a trail??!! But I think we all know what a joke our Judicial system is too dont we? Can I say OJ?
If you take up arms against our National Government, please don't say you know me or have ever had a conversation with me, because your butt will be in some serious trouble. And trust me, no-one is going to see you as being patriotic.
-
Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 3:06 p.m.Your statement proves that you are afraid of your government. That's what the Bill of Rights was written to prevent. Your comment is proof of my concerns. I've never in any statement advocated taking up arms. I've exercised my right to free speech. To paraphrase a paraphrase of Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Or write it and send it in a letter to your friends without fear of retribution.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:48 p.m.Yes, and it's good to remember, George Washington, Franklin and others understood terrorism at the hands of an oppresive government first hand, and they were the only Americans in history who, if the failed would be drawn and quartered, probably while still alive. They understood a real and imminent threat and STILL ensured that the government had restrictions placed on it's power. Washington was essentially given the complete power of a dictator for six months of crisis and got rid of that power as soon as he could. Bush just keeps taking more and more... He is not an American and has nothing in common with our founding fathers.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
gregshortdotcom
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:37 a.m."Probably while still alive"? I thought that's how it was always done. :)
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 3:07 p.m.No, sometimes they were hanged first and were already dead before they drew and quartered them. The quartering was for parading the dead body around in the streets.
-
-
Avg rating: (+2/-1 1)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:54 p.m.Sorry Bravo, I am not picking on you, but you have some good information to expand on, george Washington also warned America about the dangers of the 2 party system, and if you want to see how America has gone down the tubes because of that, ask yourself how corporate America wound up owning our courts and politicians.
What is happening in our political arena isn't anything new at all. There is a very limited amount of damage that anyone can do to the nation, and then he gets voted out, and the next guy gets a chance to screw up the nation and line his pockets with the nations wealth.
That is the Cycle of our political system. The 2 parties have it set up to where it is that way and will always be that way unless someone or everyone decides to do something about it.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 3:14 p.m.Bush and his republican friends had district lines redrawn in Texas so that democrats could not ever hold a majority. It was statistical gerrymandering. Both one and two party systems have risks when people loose their good moral character. The USSR and China can claim to have one party Republics. We could go down the tubes with a one party system just as easily. I've not determined which is better or worse. I believe Lieberman's election is evidence that a multi-party system is even better than a two party system. But I'm not sure yet. A two party system also has allowed some old-fashioned "Southern Democrats" like James Webb a place to go. Webb is probably more pro-military and more conservative than any Senator in the country but he's not pro-big business or part of the Republican Good Ole Boy system that's taken over so there was no place for him. I'm glad he had a place to go. The Southern Democrats in the Democrat party is in essence a new 3rd party.
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sandokan
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:33 a.m.A question we should all be asking is why has Dubya put these policies into effect? How would he be able or the Group 41 be able to use the gains that they have made with 43 in power?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
protoham
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:40 a.m.And this bill was co-sponsered by a Democrat!! Tells you where we are headed!!
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
r2me2
Jan. 4, 2007, 9:46 p.m.Oh! you mean the one who was a failed architecture student, who was the grandchild of a jew and ruled in a foreign country. Yeah! what was his name?
SSSSSHHHHHHH. Don't say too loud, big brother is probably reading this too at the same time your mail is being open.
Like Old Ben said. The ones who want to sacrifice liberty under the excuse of enforcing security don't deserve to have either one.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:35 p.m.lol...so, the Iranians have a tremendous talent for reverse engineering military weapons systems and improving on them They have an excellent main battle tank, a 200mph plus torpedo and will relatively soon be able to put nuclear warheads on such systems. what makes you think they need to use the US mail to send hand written unencrypted plans and instructions to their operatives in the US?....lol. How hard do you think it is to totally obscure where a letter originated and to embed code into the text? given that what do you think the odds are that searching our mail is going to unearth some dastardly plot...lol... It's more likely that a paranoid fascist addict with delusions of grandeur and power who thinks god talks to him will usurp the rights given to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bush is more dangerous to us in the long run than anyone in the Middle East.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
espse
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:46 a.m.It's more likely that a paranoid fascist addict with delusions of grandeur and power who thinks god talks to him will usurp the rights given to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bush is more dangerous to us in the long run than anyone in the Middle East.
EXCELLENT, OUTSTANDING thought. Worth repeating.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:23 a.m.The first indication of a major activity about to occur is financial activity. Money always leaves a big imprint, the bigger the money the more attention it draws. Plus electronic transmissions are being monitored so the only other way of making communication is postal.
A top Senate Intelligence Committee aide promised, "It's something we're going to look into."
This obviously is a very big deal to them, "not"
The government has always had this power, I have no idea why this is even being brought up. If there is a suspicious package in any mail delivery service, they have the right to open it and check it.
Has anyone heard of dogs being used to monitor packages? If the dog points one out, what do you think happens, they let it go, go back to court and apply for a warrant? No, it gets opened right then and there.
You people need to go back to the anti-Bush drawing room and look for some other way to string him up, OR wait until next election and vote him out.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:37 a.m.It's not a single thing like this that Bush does that is the problem, it is the sum of his actions. When there are 14 hallmarks of a fascist state and when Bush has implemented 13 of them, then every little turn of the screw should be looked at with skepticism. Our founding fathers were very suspicious of government and those with power. Add Bush's actions together and they set a very hazardous precedent.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ETproductions
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:49 a.m.Yes, suspicious packages have always been subject to opening and inspection. But this required a warrant issued by a court. Here we have Bush using a signing order to avoid asking Congress for legislation and avoid asking courts for warrants. This is extremely disturbing. Why does he need the power to snoop in whatever mail he wants without any oversight by any other branch of government? Could be because asking a judge for a warrant is such a bother. Could be because he wants to go on a massive fishing expedition and see what it turns up. The courts would never countenance such. Worst case, it could be because, like Nixon, he wants to illegally snoop into the opposition party's thought process in order to grab greater political control for himself.
-
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:34 p.m.Hey ET, Hope you are having a good day, but I hate to tell you, - Any package in custody of the United States postal Service, has Never needed a warrant to inspect. I used to carry mail, and I know. there has NEVER been a requirement to open any peice of mail, or package being delivered by any postal service, if it is suspicious, it will be opened. period.
So I have no idea what purpose serves, other than making the bad guys, drug dealers, terrorists, whatever, reconsider using the mail service for communicating, or moving merchandise. Not that it will work, but I suppose anything is worth trying.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
ETproductions
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:47 p.m.Eddie. Based on your input, I did some more research. What I had posted was based on limited reading and appears to have relied on some unreliable sources.
Thanks for the clarification. But my study doesn't set aside my concerns. Here's what I learned.
Postal authorities have always had the right to search a suspicious package, but that's not what this is about. This signing order removes the need for the letter or parcel to be suspicious in any way. This would legalize ordering the Postal Authorities to search all mail from and to the opposition party, for instance.
-
Avg rating: (+1/-1 0)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 2:38 p.m.Looks like private delivery systems are going to get even more business, but in reality, even they are subject to inspection. Fed Ex has been a major source of drug dealers for years.
-
Avg rating: (+7/-0 7)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 3:17 p.m.How much you want to bet that Bush, Baker, Cheeny and others have just bought stock in UPS, DHL, etc....lol.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sandokan
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:51 a.m.Absolutely correct Bravo, especially the last sentence.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
WYSIWYGReality
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:44 a.m.Are the Iranians using my mail to attack? I will freaking drop a lawsuit on any government sucker who dare open my mail.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Helixbuilder
Jan. 5, 2007, 9:40 a.m.I think has name was Adolf Limbaugh Coulter.
-
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
jeffery1
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:26 a.m.Bush does remind us of that Austrian dude. You're correct.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
usafao3
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:02 p.m.Just another instance where double-dah thinks he is above the law. IMPEACH HIM NOW.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
spikecwc
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:48 p.m.enough with the impeach stuff. Get some real talking points and try to use your head for something more than to hold your ears apart.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Searunner52
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:50 a.m.So I guess that his acts of malefeasance are "A-Ok" with you as are the deaths of over 3000 Americans!
-
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
Bacalao
Jan. 5, 2007, 12:34 p.m.OK how about indict him for treason against his nation. Does that seem better than asking for his impeachment??
-
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
scanner
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:24 p.m.Oh now, just by quite and do whatever our NAZI President tells us to do. Hail Bush!! (NOT)
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
spikecwc
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:33 p.m.The USS Cole was attacked during the time frame you mention. It was Al Qaida. Get your facts straight before you stick your foot in your mouth.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:40 p.m....and yes, they did plan the entire operation using unencrypted plans and letters sent through the US mail...lol....
searching mail is like the barbed wire on the top of fences...it's there to catch the amateurs but doesn't even slow a professional down...lol.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Helixbuilder
Jan. 5, 2007, 9:47 a.m.And refresh my memory what did 'blood and guts' Bush do to avenge the Cole? More than Bill did or did he do the same as Bill?
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
foxfan4ever
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:09 a.m.They probably only look at people who could have ties with terrorists and unkess you do I doubt they are going through your unimportant mail.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
FloridaGuy
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:12 a.m.The point is... mail is being opened at all.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
WYSIWYGReality
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:52 a.m.FoxFan,
u said the magic word "COULD". What about Sabhed, my neighbor? Do I know if the Bush crew will come after him and his family because he's from Iran? The way they've locked up and "interrogate" people tells me that they will open your mail too Foxfan4ever.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:33 a.m.There were 9,110 murders in the US in 1960. That increased to 16,692 in 2005. We've lost about 50,000 americans to murder since 9/11...and we don't blink an eye. If you don't count soldiers in Iraq, we've lost fewer people to terrorists since 9/11 than we have lost in any single month to murder in the US. In terms of the greater good for the greater number, Bush has us on a wild goose hunt and is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on it, most of that spent on an incompetenty conceived strategy that his top military commanders objected to. Now we are going to hunt for boogymen in the mail and we are all suspects. Get a clue folks.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
protoham
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:01 a.m.Well are you ready for Big Brother Democrat Rule. Do you really think there is a difference? Kennedy and Johnson managed to run a war with 50,000 killed every year for 16 years. Oh, yes, they were not volunteers either. Be careful what you wish for.
-
Avg rating: (+6/-4 2)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 4:33 p.m.No, that's why I try to be a strict Libertarian (Mill, Locke, Hume, Benthan, most of our founding fathers, etc.) The social contract is simple, you don't spy on citizens who without probable cause, you don't extend rights of the contract to non-citizens, you form limited treaties to define the contracts with non-citizens and you use COMPETENT application of military force a la Clauzewitz and others to pursue diplomacy by other means when you are faced with enemies. It's a clear cut formula that neither Republicans nor Democrats seem to grasp or remember for high school civics classes and college classes on Western Civilization. Democrats are naive utopianists who think being nice and extending rights of citizens to everyone will difuse all enemies; and Republicans have turned into fascists for "our own good" and are pursuing this conflict in the Middle East incompetently. Ironically, the military seems to understand this better than our politicians.
-
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:21 p.m.President Bush is more dangerous to this country in the long run than Bin Ladin ever imagined being.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:58 p.m.Bin Ladin I can hunt down and keep running like a dog. Bush will have us spying on each other and turning ourselves in a traitors and terrorists they same way Stalin used these same tactics to terrorize his own people into submission.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
FloridaGuy
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:09 a.m.Read Rod Serling's Sci-Fi story: "The Monsters are due on Maple Street." This story has come to life!
-
-
Avg rating: (+11/-2 9)
FloridaGuy
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:10 a.m.This is a true statement... but what are the "PEOPLE" doing about it? Protesting? No. Letter campaigns? No. Complaining? Yes.
Our leader has his own agenda and is using the Religious voters as his army... while he espouses "rights" as he secretly nibbles them away a piece at a time. In the end, we are all the slaves and no one is around to save us.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:23 p.m.The idea that anyone plotting against the US is dependent upon using unencrypted handwritten letters sent through the US mail to attack us is insane...lol.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:57 a.m.John Sewart Mill's book "On Liberty" was placed on the list of the 10 most dangerous books every written by the conservative religious right...Bush and people like him. Mill's IQ is estimated to be around 200. His book "On Liberty" distills the logic and values behind our Constitution and Bill of Rights better than any other single document every written. Bush has taken actions and has written interpretations that are in exact contradiction to the principles in Mill's work. Bush has appointed judges whose rulings and positions flatly overturn Mill's principles of liberty and libertarianism. Bush is doing more damage to our way of life, or is at least is laying the logic and precedent to destroy it more thoroughly that Bin Laden is. Go get and read "On Liberty" and then read the works of our founding fathers. Bush will terrify you.
-
Avg rating: (+13/-1 12)
BravoSierra
Jan. 5, 2007, 3:38 p.m.I keep waiting for people who give me negative votes on comments like this to go get the book "On Liberty" and pull out quotes that actually challenge and prove me wrong. If they had it on the tip of their tongue they could do so...It's on line at several sites...I can start quoting it if you like...I'll help you refute me...if we can...lol.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
knok
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:43 a.m.Will it be possible to revoke this policy when this administration is over ? I hope so.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Sandokan
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:28 a.m.Is it any wonder that this Administration has put blinders on to a country that believes in the government. We all should get off of our knees, with our a s s e s in the air, and remove the object Bush shoved up there, and ram it down his throat. Don't you think it's time??? Or do you all want more weenies jammed up there?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
protoham
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:37 a.m.Yes, and now the Democrates will have their chance to add to the list. There should be one more law: For every law that is passed they must repeal two.
-
Avg rating: (+4/-0 4)
gregshortdotcom
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:24 a.m.What freedom am I losing because of this? None that I can see. My mail is still perfectly private. There is no emergency that will ever warrant the President going through my mail. I'm just not that important.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
FSU92grad
Jan. 5, 2007, 4:59 p.m.Did you even read the article Technology ? Since you didn't, here is the quote fro the actual article..Man, you stupid libs talk about how conservatives use scare tactics...You guys are the worse...
"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."
Need a warrant, pal, to "invade your privacy"...And if you have nothing to hide, who gives a crap? Unless you are ordering gay porn through the mail or something..Then I would be worried..
This is just another gallant attempt by the whacky left to tie America's hands behind our backs so we cannot do what needs to be done in terms of countering terrorism...If you are not a terrorist, then you have nothing to worry about...
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
jaern
Jan. 9, 2007, 9:35 p.m.I can't help but wonder if the people who gave your post a negative rating think: BFD, It's just the US Constitution.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Ousama
Jan. 4, 2007, 1:11 p.m.Well if he decided to read my mail and he sees some over due bills if he would like to send in a check for me I would greatly appreciate it.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
WYSIWYGReality
Jan. 5, 2007, 8:49 a.m.I guess Luvmyprez had a change of heart... Ain't that something. Are you a dem now?
-
Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:36 p.m.Eeeww no Carona's, - Dos Equis!!! is the real thing.
-
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
not2needy
Jan. 4, 2007, 7:08 p.m.I have plenty of bills, we can have them put in his name if he wants the liberty of looking at them, LOLOL.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
PopEye52
Jan. 4, 2007, 8:13 p.m.not a laughing matter! he kills your sons and daughters, now it your mail he wants to read or do what ever he wants to do with it.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
spikecwc
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:37 p.m.Good point. It's those with something to hide who are spouting the most about this.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Tango57
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:43 p.m.It's downright scary when American's don't care about their civil rights. Makes me wonder what all they are willing to surrender too. Not me! Too many members of my family sacrificed all they had for democracy.
-
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
B1BLancer
Jan. 5, 2007, 9:24 a.m.If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, do you?
-
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
eddie107
Jan. 5, 2007, 1:38 p.m.Again, the federal government has ALWAYS had the authority to open any peice of mail that is in custody of the United States Postal Service. Nothing has changed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
