0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 10:25 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The law is quite specific that ANY mail, parcels, packages, or other coming into the the United States from elsewhere is subject to customs and/or security inspections and yes, that means the government can open First Class mail. Which is exactly what the President said if you put his remarks into an honest context.


Soi it's only foreign mail etc and nothing domestic.


I am not positive, but I think if there is reason to suspect something sinister (like a letter bomb) is in Domestic mail, they can open that too, but they would have to have legitimate cause. I think they can get a warrant to intercept illegal activity as it is illegal to conduct certain activities through the mail. They can't open it just to read what somebody has written without such cause. They can also open undeliverable mail to see if they can figure out some way to deliver it.

We don't have to rely on another round of "I think"s and he-said-she-said statements in press articles. Why don't we just look at the signing statement in question, wich is only a Google search away?

Here is the relevant excerpt of Mr. Bush's signing statement:
    The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Source

This paragraph of the signing statement refers to the following section in the "Postal accountability and enhancement act":
    `(c) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. 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.'.

Source

Note that the bill does not contain an exception for Foxfyre's ticking time bomb. It looks to me as if George Bush is simply asserting that this exception continues to exist. This is consistent with existing constitutional law. Nothing sinister seems to be going on in this case.

Foxfyre wrote:
Would you say that your mind is not made up?

I would reserve judgment on this issue. I would also point out the possibility that if something doesn't change my mind maybe my mind wasn't made up; maybe the something just wasn't all that persuasive.

Foxfyre wrote:
Not top secret at all. I would imagine its all pretty well spelled out in the postal regulations.

I know. I was parodizing earlier Bush administration rhetoric, in a spirit called irony.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 10:32 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Not top secret at all. I would imagine its all pretty well spelled out in the postal regulations.


Thomas wrote
Quote:
I know. I was parodizing earlier Bush administration rhetoric, in a spirit called irony.


Sort of like Coulter does, huh. Smile (I actually bristled just a bit when I read your own brand of parody humor even with the smiley face. So I understand the irritation factor in 'criticism cloaked in humor' targeted at policy, etc. etc. etc. We conservatives are capable of empathy. Smile)
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 10:40 am
Quote:
This is consistent with existing constitutional law.


Which part of constitutional law, exactly, gives the 'ticking time bomb' exception to all other duly enacted laws?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:13 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
This is consistent with existing constitutional law.


Which part of constitutional law, exactly, gives the 'ticking time bomb' exception to all other duly enacted laws?

Cycloptichorn


The "exigent circumstances" exception.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:15 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
This is consistent with existing constitutional law.


Which part of constitutional law, exactly, gives the 'ticking time bomb' exception to all other duly enacted laws?

Cycloptichorn


The "exigent circumstances" exception.


Where is that written in the Constitution? Serious question.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:18 am
Amendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) to the United States Constitution is one of the provisions included in the Bill of Rights. The Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, and was originally designed as a response to the controversial writs of assistance (a type of general search warrant), which were a significant factor behind the American Revolution.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:19 am
edit: let me re-phrase that. I'm aware that there are several cases in which it has been found that 'exigent circumstances' are okay for no-knock entries and searches. But, is each and every law subject to exigent circumstances? Who decides what those circumstances are?

If there is no oversight body, doesn't this give the administrative authority who claims this power the right to do whatever they want? They can always claim 'ex. circ' and then refuse to show you the evidence for 'national security reasons.' Seems ripe for abuse.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:23 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Where is that written in the Constitution? Serious question.

Cycloptichorn

It isn't. It is written in the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment caselaw. If you are a police officer, and you hear shots inside a house, you needn't drive to city hall and obtain a warrant before you can enter the house. By the same logic, if you're a police officer, if you see a letter with heavy, asymmetrically distributed weight, and if that letter ticks, you needn't obtain a warrant until you can open it and defuse the bomb.

You will probably ask me which cases I'm referring to. I can't cite them off the top of my head, but I remember that they were cited in one of last term's Supreme Court cases. The issue presented in that case was whether it's a consensual search when the police knocks at the door and asks to search, one inhabitant agrees, and the other doesn't. If anyone here remembers the name of that case, I'll give Cycloptichorn the precedents that I anticipate he will ask for.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:30 am
Thomas wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Where is that written in the Constitution? Serious question.

Cycloptichorn

It isn't. It is written in the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment caselaw. If you are a police officer, and you hear shots inside a house, you needn't drive to city hall and obtain a warrant before you can enter the house. By the same logic, if you're a police officer, if you see a letter with heavy, asymmetrically distributed weight, and if that letter ticks, you needn't obtain a warrant until you can open it and defuse the bomb.

You will probably ask me which cases I'm referring to. I can't cite them off the top of my head, but I remember that they were cited in one of last term's Supreme Court cases. The issue presented in that case was whether it's a consensual search when the police knocks at the door and asks to search, one inhabitant agrees, and the other doesn't. If anyone here remembers the name of that case, I'll give Cycloptichorn the precedents that I anticipate he will ask for.


See above post - I couldn't edit before Dys' posted.

In cases having to do with national security, does ExCirc create a situation in which there are literally no limits to what actions the Exec. branch can perform?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:38 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
If there is no oversight body, doesn't this give the administrative authority who claims this power the right to do whatever they want? They can always claim 'ex. circ' and then refuse to show you the evidence for 'national security reasons.' Seems ripe for abuse.

Cycloptichorn


And the jack-booted police can kick down your door in the middle of the night, grab your stash of pot, arrest you for possession, and assert an "exigent circumstances" exception to the requirement for a search warrant. You would have the same concern in that circumstance. Who oversees the police?

Your response is to defend yourself in court, seek to surpress the fruits of the illegal search, and possibly file a § 1983 case against the officers and the government body if you believe they violated your civil rights.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:41 am
I feel the need to explain my objection to Coulter. I don't object to her making light of serious topics or using exaggeration to make a point. What I object to is the inciteful (not insightful) tone of her writing. At times I think that she's playing a part, purposely being absurdly extreme in order to see how far she can go. She is a verbal cartoonist, portraying caricatures of real life situations. These caricatures have little semblance of reality, though. I have read her:

1) advocate genocide as a solution to the middle east conflict
2) advocate and encourage violence against a Yale student
3) advocate terrorism
4) call everyone who did not vote for Bush traitors
5) mourn women's suffrage
6) advocate torture

and many other repugnant things. Maybe she's joking. Maybe she's just conducting a grand experience on how extreme she can be and still be accepted by Republican partisans. When people in Rwanda began slaughtering one another, they were incited by radio broadcasts. I don't know what those radio broadcasts said, but my imagination thinks it might be along the lines of "Tutsis are traitors, they long to see us murdered by our enemies, if Hutus were real men, they'd beat the tutsis more senseless than they already are, Tutsis are the cause of all our ills, we should engage in torturing them as a spectator sport."

I'm not advocating silencing her. I hope she keeps talking and pushing the limits until finally nobody reads her. But I think people absolutely should be judged on their ideas and thoughts and actions (what else should we judge them by?) and based on that Coulter comes out not much better than an ignorant monkey.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:44 am
FreeDuck wrote:
I have read her:

1) advocate genocide as a solution to the middle east conflict
2) advocate and encourage violence against a Yale student
3) advocate terrorism
4) call everyone who did not vote for Bush traitors
5) mourn women's suffrage
6) advocate torture


And I'm sure you'll agree that I did not post any articles of hers where she did any of those things.

Quote:
I'm not advocating silencing her. I hope she keeps talking and pushing the limits until finally nobody reads her. But I think people absolutely should be judged on their ideas and thoughts and actions (what else should we judge them by?) and based on that Coulter comes out not much better than an ignorant monkey.


Ah, and so Clinton is a philandering liar. A rutting monkey, perhaps?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:47 am
Ticomaya wrote:

Your response is to defend yourself in court, seek to surpress the fruits of the illegal search, and possibly file a § 1983 case against the officers and the government body if you believe they violated your civil rights.


That is as long as you didn't mistake them for home invaders and open fire, in which case your response is probably to lie quietly in your grave.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:48 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:

Your response is to defend yourself in court, seek to surpress the fruits of the illegal search, and possibly file a § 1983 case against the officers and the government body if you believe they violated your civil rights.


That is as long as you didn't mistake them for home invaders and open fire, in which case your response is probably to lie quietly in your grave.


Good luck!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:49 am
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
I have read her:

1) advocate genocide as a solution to the middle east conflict
2) advocate and encourage violence against a Yale student
3) advocate terrorism
4) call everyone who did not vote for Bush traitors
5) mourn women's suffrage
6) advocate torture


And I'm sure you'll agree that I did not post any articles of hers where she did any of those things.


Yes, I will agree to that. I think I said so already but I don't mind repeating it.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not advocating silencing her. I hope she keeps talking and pushing the limits until finally nobody reads her. But I think people absolutely should be judged on their ideas and thoughts and actions (what else should we judge them by?) and based on that Coulter comes out not much better than an ignorant monkey.


Ah, and so Clinton is a philandering liar. A rutting monkey, perhaps?


Rutting monkey seems apt.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 11:56 am
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 12:01 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
... But I think people absolutely should be judged on their ideas and thoughts and actions (what else should we judge them by?) and based on that Coulter comes out not much better than an ignorant monkey.


Ah, and so Clinton is a philandering liar. A rutting monkey, perhaps?


Rutting monkey seems apt.


And yet people still quote him. Curious .... Are these people rutting monkeys?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 12:10 pm
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 12:16 pm
Are you planning on going to law school, Cyclops? Serious question.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Jan, 2007 12:17 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
... But I think people absolutely should be judged on their ideas and thoughts and actions (what else should we judge them by?) and based on that Coulter comes out not much better than an ignorant monkey.


Ah, and so Clinton is a philandering liar. A rutting monkey, perhaps?


Rutting monkey seems apt.


And yet people still quote him. Curious .... Are these people rutting monkeys?


I don't follow.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 09:20:25