posted
I did ask the question that I wanted answered and I didn't prejudge your answer. Could you answer the question, perhaps?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* Look, I'm sorry for whatever it is that you think I did. Could you answer the question?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not presuming your answer. I'll expand it. Why does the President think this is superior and do you agree that it is?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, for my clarification, does the signing statement just mean that Bush thinks he can open the mail, without actually giving him the right to? Is it just sort of his opinion?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It kind of depends on what you consider a "right". It is something he can do that it is extremely hard to stop him from doing, especially as it is likely that they are going to be (and probably have been) doing it without any oversight, i.e. without anyone knowing that they are doing it. It's his opinion and statement of intent that is extremely difficult for anyone to challenge (see the article I linked). It is really hard to bring the legal system against the executive branch of the government.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A theory on the overarching differences between the Administration's view on these types of privacy matters:
President Bush want to use the might of the government to stop acts of terrorism. To do this he needs to gather information.
Law Enforcement organizations want to prosecute crimminals. To do this they need to gather information.
Politician want to get reelected. One strategy of doing this is to gather information on thier opponents.
The Constitution and the Laws of the Land specifically limit what Law Enforcement and regular citizens, including Politicians, are allowed to do in order to gain their needed information.
However, the President is seeking information not for law enforcement reasons, nor for political gains. He needs this information for what he believes is the prosecution of the war. As such he believes that not only is he free from legal constraints put on law enforcement, but that the people of the country should support him.
My fear is that information is a very slippery commodity. If the information recieved has no bearing on the war, but does prove crimminal activity, what should the administration do with that information. If the prisoner being tortured turns out not to have been involved in violence against the country, but has been involved with violence against children for fun and profit, what do we do with this information?
If we can export findings used by the government in its anti-terror campaign to prosecute other crimminals, then why can't our regular law enforcement agencies use the same tactics?
If we discover that the prisoner has no information about Al Queda, but does happen to know that a political opponent to the CIA likes to frequent a certain strip-club, can we ever insure that the CIA won't use this information for political reasons?
And if there are no impartial overseers watching what political information these war-time practices aquire, how do we insure that those in power, either now or for future holders of power, won't misuse these practices?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, the President is seeking information not for law enforcement reasons, nor for political gains. He needs this information for what he believes is the prosecution of the war. As such he believes that not only is he free from legal constraints put on law enforcement, but that the people of the country should support him.
Ha ha. Good luck with that.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by erosomniac: Why is this a big deal, at all?
Is there anyone here who can honestly say they don't believe the government opens our mail when they feel like it?
Is there anyone here who actually sends anything they want to keep private via the USPS?
It matters to me in a sense that approaches the academic. My natural suspicion of anything that limits personal privacy has been aroused, but the statement as I read it seems pretty clear. My only real concern is that, if the law is abused, we won't find out about it till much later, if ever.
This might have pissed me off a few months ago. My supply of outrage has been running pretty low since the torture/enemy combatant controverseys so it's hard for me to dredge up any for this.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, if it's a matter of national security and they absolutely HAVE to open someone's mail, I'm okay with it, so long as there is an investigation into the circumstances afterwards.
If someone opens my mail and we find out later that they really didn't need to, the evidence obtained should not be admissable. Foiling a crime in the making is one thing, but stealing information for the purposes of prosecution should be strictly reviewed in every circumstance to protect against abuse, and if there are abuses, the evidence should be tossed, if for no other reason than to teach officials not to break rules put in place by men much smarter than they.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still unsure of what case could come along, outside of the already provided for ticking bomb scenario, where opening the mail right then! would be necessary. I mean, it's not like they can't just hold onto the mail for the little bit it would take to get a warrant.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
