[QUOTE=Bricker]
Except that, too, is entirely consistent with existing law. The statement that gives you belly rumblins SPECIFICALLY says: "“the need for physical searches **specifically authorized by law]/b] for foreign intelligence collection.” You agree, I assume, that this statement is a completely accurate statement of what was and is legally permissible for the Executive Branch to do, yes? Your objection is grounded entirely in supposition. You’re saying, in essence, “I don’t trust him, and therefore I choose to believe he will interpret specifically authorized by law as not authorized by any law at all.”
There is NOTHING in the plain text of the statement that changes existing law. Nothing at all.
[/QUOTE]
Baloney. We know, in part, his interpretation of the phrase “specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.” He thinks that, despite FISA and the 4th Amendment, wiretapping citizens without a warrant is “specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.” He believes that foreign intelligence collection, whether by telephone, email, or, now, regular mail, is his, and his alone, province to determine, and he is not bound by the law or the 4th Amendment.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
There is NOTHING in the plain text of the statement that changes existing law. Nothing at all.
[/QUOTE]
Well, to quote the ACLU on the subject – and since I’m quoting the ACLU with favor, hell should be freezing over momentarily –
Cite. So far the only answer to this question posted here is, essentially, “to foster debate.” With all due respect to Bricker, I think the weakness of that as a justification is pretty self-evident. And I think Hamlet’s point about how innocuous these signing statements are (or aren’t) is an excellent one: We already know how fast and loose the executive branch plays with the 4th amendment – and with how little judicial oversight – because of how they have handled wiretapping.
Even if that’s true, it renders the signing statement a mere superfluity. And you haven’t done a particularly good job refuting Jodi’s arguments why a torrent of superfluous signing statements are as problematic and pernicious as signing statements which are actually attempting to arrogate legislative and judicial authority.
[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Yes-- I do have a technical concern. Do you think the President of the United States can legally read my, or any other citizen’s, mail without a warrent? Really, that’s the whole point, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I do. If exigent circumstances exist. That was true for Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, and so on and so on.
I agree that this is the whole point: it has always been legal, under exigent circumstances, to read mail without a warrant. Before Bush’s signing statement, during the moments he was appending his signature, and afterwards.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Except that, too, is entirely consistent with existing law. The statement that gives you belly rumblins SPECIFICALLY says: "“the need for physical searches **specifically authorized by law]/b] for foreign intelligence collection.” You agree, I assume, that this statement is a completely accurate statement of what was and is legally permissible for the Executive Branch to do, yes? Your objection is grounded entirely in supposition. You’re saying, in essence, “I don’t trust him, and therefore I choose to believe he will interpret specifically authorized by law as not authorized by any law at all.”
There is NOTHING in the plain text of the statement that changes existing law. Nothing at all.
[/QUOTE]
Is there a law specifically giving Bush the power to open mail for foreign intelligence collection?
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Well, to quote the ACLU on the subject – and since I’m quoting the ACLU with favor, hell should be freezing over momentarily –
Cite. So far the only answer to this question posted here is, essentially, “to foster debate.” With all due respect to Bricker, I think the weakness of that as a justification is pretty self-evident. And I think Hamlet’s point about how innocuous these signing statements are (or aren’t) is an excellent one: We already know how fast and loose the executive branch plays with the 4th amendment – and with how little judicial oversight – because of how they have handled wiretapping.
[/QUOTE]
Even the ACLU simply says that the practice “raises serious questions.” Well, I have no problem agreeing with that – it raises questions. Clearly it raises questions; we are debating these questions now.
I object to the OP’s characterization of the answers to these questions as forgone conclusions.
Bricker: Do you believe that the President is appending these signing statements in order to foster public debate? If so, do you believe there are any other reasons that the President is appending these signing statements? If so, can you give me a sense of what you think they might be?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Prior to Mr. Bush’s action, under what circumstances, if any, do you believe that mail could be opened without a warrant?
[/QUOTE]
Jesus Fucking Christ.
Can’t you just, for once, pretty please, offer an actual argument when you don’t agree with an OP, rather than serving up one of your patented exam-style inquiries? It’s obvious that you have an argument or a point that might make the OP reconsider his position, but this sort of schoolmarmish condescension just makes you look like an asshole.
I’m probably pissing into the wind here, because i’ve brought this up before and you show no inclination to change. Just my 2c.
[QUOTE=treis]
Is there a law specifically giving Bush the power to open mail for foreign intelligence collection?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand the phrasing of this question.
There is a law authorizing searches in general for foreign intelligence collection, and it does not exclude mail. It doesn’t specifically mention mail either.
But then, it doesn’t specifically mention cars. I assume you understand that we may not argue that because the law does not mention cars, cars are excluded from the reach of the law.
So – yes, the law permits the President to open mail for foreign intelligence collection without a warrant under very specific circumstances.
[QUOTE=Gadarene] Bricker: Do you believe that the President is appending these signing statements in order to foster public debate? If so, do you believe there are any other reasons that the President is appending these signing statements? If so, can you give me a sense of what you think they might be?
[/QUOTE]
I believe he’s doing this to shape public opinion favorably to his cause… not sure if it’s “public debate” so much as it’s “spin.”
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t understand the phrasing of this question.
There is a law authorizing searches in general for foreign intelligence collection, and it does not exclude mail. It doesn’t specifically mention mail either.
Don’t ask me. Bush said specifically, I am merely using his terminology.
But then, it doesn’t specifically mention cars. I assume you understand that we may not argue that because the law does not mention cars, cars are excluded from the reach of the law.
[/quote]
Don’t ask me. Bush said specifically, I am merely using his terminology.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
So – yes, the law permits the President to open mail for foreign intelligence collection without a warrant under very specific circumstances.
[/QUOTE]
Can’t you just, for once, pretty please, offer an actual argument when you don’t agree with an OP, rather than serving up one of your patented exam-style inquiries? It’s obvious that you have an argument or a point that might make the OP reconsider his position, but this sort of schoolmarmish condescension just makes you look like an asshole.
I’m probably pissing into the wind here, because i’ve brought this up before and you show no inclination to change. Just my 2c.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry you feel that way. My advice would be to stop reading my posts.
Do you think that’s the only reason he’s doing it? If so, can you assess for me the likelihood that the average joe in, say, Fayetteville, Arkansas has any knowledge whatsoever of the language Mr. Bush uses in signing statements?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Yes, the term “exigent circumstances” is used in a zillion or so Fourth Amendment cases, and is a well-recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
[/QUOTE]
Alright. So does the term tend to mean the same thing in all those zillion cases? Not that I expect you to know them all off by heart, but is there a common theme? If I went to a judge and said “What does the law consider to be exigent circumstances for opening private mail?” would he say “Ah, you could do that if this was the case, or this, or this, but that’s pretty much it” or would he say "It’s been defined as many different things, I couldn’t give you a common example of a situation that would count as “exigent circumstances”?
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Alright. So does the term tend to mean the same thing in all those zillion cases? Not that I expect you to know them all off by heart, but is there a common theme? If I went to a judge and said “What does the law consider to be exigent circumstances for opening private mail?” would he say “Ah, you could do that if this was the case, or this, or this, but that’s pretty much it” or would he say "It’s been defined as many different things, I couldn’t give you a common example of a situation that would count as “exigent circumstances”?
[/QUOTE]
There are a number of examples, although the courts warn that there is no bright-line test and each case must be considered individually to determine if exigent circumstances exist. Most of the markers for exigent circumstances do not apply to mail, like preventing the destruction of evidence or the escape of a suspect. But other factors, such as “An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property…” could apply to mail. If we imagine, for example, that the bad guys mailed the bomb locations and disarm codes, then opening that piece of mail without securing a warrant in order to prevent detonation of the bombs would surely qualify as exigent circumstances.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
50 USC § 1801 et seq, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Signed into law by the fascist overlord Jimmy Carter.
[/QUOTE]
Unless I am mistaken, that section appears to refer to electronic surveillance. Can you quote the specific part you believe authorizes searches of the mail?