Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without w

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:12 PM
Original message
Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without w
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_asks_Bush_to_explain_signing_0108.html

January 8, 2007

The Honorable George W. Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am deeply concerned about the signing statement that you issued on December 20, 2006, regarding H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It raises serious questions about whether the government is reading Americans’ first class mail without obtaining a search warrant or other court order as required by statute.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act recodified in a different location an existing provision of federal law, without change, that states as follows:

No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.<1>

In your signing statement, you stated that the executive branch would construe this provision “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006 on the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program, Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether the executive branch was relying in other contexts on the theory that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force gave it the authority to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other statutes. Specifically, Senator Leahy asked: “Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens?” The Attorney General attempted to avoid answering the question, but ultimately stated: “Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here. We are only focused on communications, international communications, where one party to the communication is al Qaeda. That is what this program is all about.”

You have already confirmed that you have authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of communications without obtaining the court orders required by FISA. Your December 20, 2006, signing statement now suggests that you believe you have the authority to violate the law with regard to opening regular mail. The American people and Congress are entitled to know whether you have acted on that theory. Please answer the following question: has your administration authorized any government agency to read Americans’ first-class mail without obtaining a search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service regulations?

I look forward to your expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold

United States Senator

1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11

<1> A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Go Russ!
Even though that letter was probably shitcanned long before it reached Bush's desk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeysays Donating Member (512 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. hahahahahaha...
the mail sec... okay, lets see here, "R" okay, in... "R" okay, in... ohhhh, oh no... no no no, he can't be bothered by them... "D" out... "R" good, in... "R"... etc...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. WAY too many words for Bush
He'll require a team of Dumbification Experts to translate it for him.

Then he'll piss on it.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Russ is a HERO! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mockmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. Now that's a letter
he has no interest in opening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. LOL!!! Good one!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. Go, Russ, go!!!
How I wish that man would run in '08!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. Funny, when I read the thread title, I immediately knew it was Russ.
The guy is a great American. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Double T Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. Russ, don't expect an answer from bush, he doesn't respond to letters.........
or phone calls that have a whiff of questioning his supreme authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Yup, thank god for subpoenas
He'll have to respond to those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ezlivin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. A little anthrax in the letter would have spiced things up
And reminded the prick that the second terrorist attack on American soil has been completely ignored. Where's the FBI? Where's the damned investigation?

I guess they don't want an investigation to end up on their doorstep.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. bush will never read it
he does`t care what anyone has to say about what he does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. That's a fantastic letter, and if it were addressed to Any Other President
it might get somewhere besides the virtual Dead Letter office. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
12. once again the Dems MISS the bigger point entirely - it is NOT about the mail, it is ABOUT
the fact that signing statements have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY in the constitution and if the president acts on a signing statement
in violation of his constitutional oath he should be impeached and removed.

the consitution grants the president two options, veto legislation or enforce it as written.

Feingold is bailing the boat without patching the hole.

again.

Msongs
www.msongs.com
batik & digital art
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Feingold's jumping through the hoops
He's asking the pertinent question first. If he doesn't receive a response, then he can go on to the next step, which I would presume would include a Senate subcommittee hearing. By doing the letter first, he takes out the dodge of "Gee, you never asked us about that. We'll have to get back to you in a couple of days/weeks/months/years."

The question's been asked: Are you breaking the law and going against your own AG's testimony? The response (or lack thereof) opens the door to an investigation, which will track down some more of the story. The Bush administration is a real stickler for protocol and procedure when it comes to questions it doesn't want to answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. That's exactly right
A pre-emptive strike for when the hearings begin.

<rubbing hands together in anticipation>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrictlyRockers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
14. Damn, that guy just totally rocks!
:yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-08-07 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. Wouldn't the most recent law supersede the one
from 1996?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
19. Good for Russ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC