Bush claims authority to open Americans' mail

[waste gate]

This is going too far!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant.

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070104/NEWS/701040302/1033/NEWS01

[waste gate]

I sent an e-mail to the Whitehouse voicing my displeasure with this. Many of you know that I have supported Mr. Bush in the past, but this is a violation of the Fourth Amendement of our Constitution.

I let him know that I considered it an impeachable offense.


This is the automated response I received:

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
The President is committed to continuing our economic progress,
defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values.

Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House
cannot respond to every message. Please visit the White House
website for the most up-to-date information on Presidential
initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you.
In order to better receive comments from the public, a new system
has been implemented. In the future please send your comments to
comments@whitehouse.gov (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/).

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

[Fish]

More people in Europe start thinking the US is becoming a police state in the near future. :hmm:

[ASWnut101]

Yeah, I support him too, and you are right. That IS a little too far, even for someone like me who has nothing to hide...

[STEED]

American folk don't let your wonderful country become a police state.

[waste gate]

This is the follow-up that I sent in response to the automated message.


If Mr. Bush signed an order to allow persons to open the mail of US citizens than he is clearly not committed to
'defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values'.

[The Avon Lady]

Reading through the hype (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail_1), I don't see the big deal.

Wasn't mail opening done heavily during WWII even in the US? What is new here?

[ASWnut101]

STEED: not to suggest anything (so DONT anyone), but a presidential assasination will most likely happen before it goes that far, to be a police state would have an opposition rate of about 98%+.:yep:

[Fish]

STEED: not to suggest anything (so DONT anyone), but a presidential assasination will most likely happen before it goes that far, to be a police state would have an opposition rate of about 98%+.:yep:

To fly to the US is almost as hard as going to Moskow during the cold war. :yep:

[Ducimus]

Oh gee, another signing statement to circumnavigate our nations laws. I'm not surpised in the least.

[STEED]

To fly to the US is almost as hard as going to Moskow during the cold war. :yep:

I had two great holidays there in America back in the early 90's and some day I would like to go back, so I hope I don't run into a wall of regulations on that day.

[waste gate]

Reading through the hype (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail_1), I don't see the big deal.

Wasn't mail opening done heavily during WWII even in the US? What is new here?
What does this mean?
"in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."


Its BS which violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This mess could very easily draw blood.

[ASWnut101]

STEED: not to suggest anything (so DONT anyone), but a presidential assasination will most likely happen before it goes that far, to be a police state would have an opposition rate of about 98%+.:yep:

To fly to the US is almost as hard as going to Moskow during the cold war. :yep:


Its not that hard. In fact:

On May 29, 1987, Mathias Rust, a 19-year-old German, flew his Cessna 172 from Finland, crossing through the Soviet defense systems undetected, and landed his aircraft in Red Square, Moscow. Rust was tried and sentenced to four years in jail but was freed in 1988. Soviet Defence Minister Alexander Koldunov was dismissed, and there were shake-ups in the armed services.

(true story)

[waste gate]

I just call one senators office (they knew nothing of it) and expressed my displeasure. I then called my congressmans office, Tom Tancredo. The woman seemed to have heard about it and was happy to pass the message along, stating she doesn't even let her husband open her mail.


I have my hackles up over this.

[UglyMowgli]

He did the flight during the border Guard Day, they were all drunk so they didn't notice him passing :). He was freed because of the sunk of the K219 and the enquiry done by the russian gvt.

[Ducimus]

President Bush is living proof there needs to be an arbitrary limit on how many Signing statements a president can issue during their term in office.

[The Avon Lady]

Reading through the hype (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail_1), I don't see the big deal.

Wasn't mail opening done heavily during WWII even in the US? What is new here?
What does this mean?
"in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."


Its BS which violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This mess could very easily draw blood.
Can you find me a link to the accepted practices of government postal inspection during WWII?

In fact, try doing the same for the Civil War.

Then we all might know what it means.

[waste gate]

Reading through the hype (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail_1), I don't see the big deal.

Wasn't mail opening done heavily during WWII even in the US? What is new here?
What does this mean?
"in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."


Its BS which violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This mess could very easily draw blood.
Can you find me a link to the accepted practices of government postal inspection during WWII?

In fact, try doing the same for the Civil War.

Then we all might know what it means.

I'd go thru that effort but this is neither the civil war nor WWII, so it doesnot apply.

[The Avon Lady]

Reading through the hype (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail_1), I don't see the big deal.

Wasn't mail opening done heavily during WWII even in the US? What is new here?
What does this mean?
"in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."


Its BS which violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This mess could very easily draw blood.
Can you find me a link to the accepted practices of government postal inspection during WWII?

In fact, try doing the same for the Civil War.

Then we all might know what it means.

I'd go thru that effort but this is neither the civil war nor WWII, so it doesnot apply.
There are people planning massive casualty attacks against US civilian, government, economic and military targets. One was not enough?

[waste gate]

Reading through the hype (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/opening_the_mail_1), I don't see the big deal.

Wasn't mail opening done heavily during WWII even in the US? What is new here?
What does this mean?
"in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."


Its BS which violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

This mess could very easily draw blood.
Can you find me a link to the accepted practices of government postal inspection during WWII?

In fact, try doing the same for the Civil War.

Then we all might know what it means.

I'd go thru that effort but this is neither the civil war nor WWII, so it doesnot apply.
There are people planning massive casualty attacks against US civilian, government, economic and military targets. One was not enough?


I understand that. But violating the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution will not stop people from 'planning massive casualty attacks against US civilian, government, economic and military targets'.

This is a massive invasion of our rights under the Constitution. Based in the signing statement the executive branch of the federal government can violate the fourth amendment without a warrant.

Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I'm sorry but there are freedoms and rights I will not give up for greater security.

[geetrue]

Why should an honest American citzen be concerned about
his or her mail being opened ...

The US government is not going to prosecute an honest person ...

This is aimed at terroist ... I can't get upset with a country
trying to protect itself ...


Same with cash deals over ten thousand dollars ...
They get reported.

This is no big deal for people like me with junk mail and a
monthly disability check.

Those of you in other countries (you know who) don't
even know if your government is wire taping you or
checking your mail anyway, right?

[TteFAboB]

Good job waste gate. :up:

The government grows bigger by the minute. These are hopeless measures of an entity that knows no way of solving any problem other than by hoping that its natural unlimited self expansion will bring the solution in the end: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa584.pdf


This paper is not intended to attack the
hard-working and well-intentioned members
of our law enforcement and intelligence communities.
Rather, it seeks to illustrate that
predictive data mining, while well suited to
certain endeavors, is problematic and generally
counterproductive in national security
settings where its use is intended to ferret out
the next terrorist.


To fly to the US is almost as hard as going to Moskow during the cold war.

I find that statement to be quite cynical. If you intend to compare the USSR and the USA it can only be done through intellectual dishonesty: it is more difficult to travel to the USA today than in the past because of Al-Qaeda's attacks, not because Americans are building paradise on Earth. Ignoring this would only minimize the Soviet Union's Iron Curtain favouring the worse, as always happens when the unequals are equalized by force.

When Europe and the USA are the only points of reference, the "police state" expression can only be used rhetorically, without any regard to reality and in relative form.

[Sailor Steve]

"They who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither"

Author unknown, but commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin (and less commonly to Thomas Jefferson).

Some polls indicate that a lot of people are willing to do just that, whether it's gun control or reading our mail. I say no.

[waste gate]

Why should an honest American citzen be concerned about
his or her mail being opened ...

The US government is not going to prosecute an honest person ...

This is aimed at terroist ... I can't get upset with a country
trying to protect itself ...


Same with cash deals over ten thousand dollars ...
They get reported.

This is no big deal for people like me with junk mail and a
monthly disability check.

Those of you in other countries (you know who) don't
even know if your government is wire taping you or
checking your mail anyway, right?


This is why!!!!!!!!!
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[U-533]

Honestly people...:roll:

If you have nothing to hide then why let it bother you?

My wife and I receive mostly junk mail...if they wanna open that "Hey more power to them"
As for the rest of my mail its bills and an occasional letter from some relative, most times wanting something...:roll:

If they want to listen in on my stupid phone calls thats ok to...

But umm I do draw the line at invading my home... so far ... when the police show up they ask nice real like if they may look around...as long as they ask first I dont mind.

I have nothing to hide.

What I do have hidden they wont find no way sooooo....Im cool:|\\ :|\\

You see this is where the right to bear arms thing comes in... you want to keep your secret stash of WHATEVER secret... when the law comes to your door shoot'em.
This should buy you enough time to find a new place to hide your s#*t...
Just remember one thing when they come back they will shoot you first then ask you questions....:roll:

Holy cow people we are at WAR... The enemy will do what it can to win... I mean come on they got 72 ETERNAL virgins thier after...EACH!!
:hmm: I just cant figure out why they stay ETERNALLY virginized?????:hmm: :hmm:

Seems like a useless cause in paradise to me.:huh: :o

[waste gate]

Honestly people...:roll:

If you have nothing to hide then why let it bother you?

My wife and I receive mostly junk mail...if they wanna open that "Hey more power to them"
As for the rest of my mail its bills and an occasional letter from some relative, most times wanting something...:roll:

If they want to listen in on my stupid phone calls thats ok to...

But umm I do draw the line at invading my home... so far ... when the police show up they ask nice real like if they may look around...as long as they ask first I dont mind.

I have nothing to hide.

What I do have hidden they wont find no way sooooo....Im cool:|\\ :|\\

You see this is where the right to bear arms thing comes in... you want to keep your secret stash of WHATEVER secret... when the law comes to your door shoot'em.
This should buy you enough time to find a new place to hide your s#*t...
Just remember one thing when they come back they will shoot you first then ask you questions....:roll:

Holy cow people we are at WAR... The enemy will do what it can to win... I mean come on they got 72 ETERNAL virgins thier after...EACH!!
:hmm: I just cant figure out why they stay ETERNALLY virginized?????:hmm: :hmm:

Seems like a useless cause in paradise to me.:huh: :o


I do not hide my firearms and I don't think based on this:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That the government can open my mail. The same slippery slope applies.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Honestly people...:roll:

If you have nothing to hide then why let it bother you?


Because if people keep on saying that, we won't have many freedoms left 20 years from now. I have no problem with the government keeping watch over terror suspects, but perhaps there should be some probable cause to do so?

PD

[Camaero]

Seeing as how only those who are guilty will only be the ones in trouble here, it doesn't bother me too much.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do think it violates that however. We certainly must be careful. A police state does not happen all at once you know. Freedoms are slowly chipped away until one day you wake up and say "Holy shxt!?" Keeping our firearms IS A MUST.

I sort of have mixed emotions on this. On one hand, they are using it to stop people we are at war with. On the other, it does seem to be a violation of an amendment.:-?

[U-533]

"UNREASONABLE SEARCH" will not be tolerated.

[Ducimus]

Honestly people...:roll:

If you have nothing to hide then why let it bother you?


Complacency like this, is how Dictator's come to power.

[waste gate]

Seeing as how only those who are guilty will only be the ones in trouble here, it doesn't bother me too much.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I do think it violates that however. We certainly must be careful. A police state does not happen all at once you know. Freedoms are slowly chipped away until one day you wake up and say "Holy shxt!?" Keeping our firearms IS A MUST.

I sort of have mixed emotions on this. On one hand, they are using it to stop people we are at war with. On the other, it does seem to be a violation of an amendment.:-?


Once you allow the power to exist nothing stops the government (police, social services, your neighbor if he/she works for the gov'mnt) from comming into your house whenever they wish without the check (constitutional seperation of powers)which is provided by another branch of government.


This is a very bad precident being set and all US citizens should make their displeasure known by calling their senators and congreessman.

[waste gate]

[quote=Camaero]Seeing as how only those who are guilty will only be the ones in trouble here, it doesn't bother me too much.[quote]

So much for innocent before proven guilty.

Perhaps you should take another look at your principles and see if they align with what made this a great country.

[nightdagger]

What I think is messed up is that it takes so long to get a warrant. In any case, this (probably) won't lead to mass-scale censorship and letter-reading. If someone who is an expert on the subject thinks that by looking through a terrorist's mail he can prevent attacks and save lives, then I'd love for him to be able to do that without waiting for a warrant.

In any case, as stated by the White House, there is no change in policy that would make it widespread.

You forget, too, that if they want to read your letters, you probably won't find out and couldn't do anything about it even if you did.

[waste gate]

What I think is messed up is that it takes so long to get a warrant. In any case, this (probably) won't lead to mass-scale censorship and letter-reading. If someone who is an expert on the subject thinks that by looking through a terrorist's mail he can prevent attacks and save lives, then I'd love for him to be able to do that without waiting for a warrant.

In any case, as stated by the White House, there is no change in policy that would make it widespread.

You forget, too, that if they want to read your letters, you probably won't find out and couldn't do anything about it even if you did.

So you easily accept the government taking your rights away?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Did everybody suddenly forget why we have Constitution?

PD

[waste gate]

Did everybody suddenly forget why we have Constitution?

PD

No. Its to protect the people (citizens) from the government.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Did everybody suddenly forget why we have Constitution?

PD
No. Its to protect the people (citizens) from the government.

Well, not everybody. :)

PD

[TteFAboB]

What about the cost of this?

It's not just the 4th Amendment, it's the tax and public deficit. Who'll open the letters? Who'll transport them? Will delays occur?

This "tension" has no solution. If we forget about our rights and what they have costed our ancestors then when the war is over we may not get them back. We need to crack down on terror cells at the same time that we need to uphold our tradition of freedom.

We need people defending the 4th Amendment. And we need people keeping terrorists at bay.

Here's a good quote about attempting to collect information to profile terrorists:


Suppose, for example, that a
test for a particular disease accurately detects
the disease (reports a true positive) 99 percent
of the time and inaccurately reports the presence
of the disease (false positive) 1 percent of
the time. Suppose also that only one in a thousand,
or 0.1 percent of the population, has
that disease. Finally, suppose that if the test
indicates the presence of disease the way to
confirm it is with a biopsy, or the taking of a
tissue sample from the potential victim’s body.
It would seem that a test this good should
be used on everyone. After all, in a population
of 300 million people, 300,000 people
have the disease, and running the test on the
entire population would reveal the disease in
297,000 of the victims. But it would cause 10
times that number—nearly three million people—
to undergo an unnecessary biopsy. If the
test were run annually, every 5 years, or every
10 years, the number of people unnecessarily
affected would rise accordingly.
In his book The Naked Crowd, George
Washington University law professor Jeffrey
Rosen discusses false positive rates in a system
that might have been designed to identify the
19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Assuming a 99 percent accuracy rate, searching
our population of nearly 300,000,000,
some 3,000,000 people would be identified as
potential terrorists.

[waste gate]

What about the cost of this?

It's not just the 4th Amendment, it's the tax and public deficit. Who'll open the letters? Who'll transport them? Will delays occur?

This "tension" has no solution. If we forget about our rights and what they have costed our ancestors then when the war is over we may not get them back. We need to crack down on terror cells at the same time that we need to uphold our tradition of freedom.

We need people defending the 4th Amendment. And we need people keeping terrorists at bay.

Here's a good quote about attempting to collect information to profile terrorists:


Suppose, for example, that a
test for a particular disease accurately detects
the disease (reports a true positive) 99 percent
of the time and inaccurately reports the presence
of the disease (false positive) 1 percent of
the time. Suppose also that only one in a thousand,
or 0.1 percent of the population, has
that disease. Finally, suppose that if the test
indicates the presence of disease the way to
confirm it is with a biopsy, or the taking of a
tissue sample from the potential victim’s body.
It would seem that a test this good should
be used on everyone. After all, in a population
of 300 million people, 300,000 people
have the disease, and running the test on the
entire population would reveal the disease in
297,000 of the victims. But it would cause 10
times that number—nearly three million people—
to undergo an unnecessary biopsy. If the
test were run annually, every 5 years, or every
10 years, the number of people unnecessarily
affected would rise accordingly.
In his book The Naked Crowd, George
Washington University law professor Jeffrey
Rosen discusses false positive rates in a system
that might have been designed to identify the
19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Assuming a 99 percent accuracy rate, searching
our population of nearly 300,000,000,
some 3,000,000 people would be identified as
potential terrorists.



OK, but are you willing to let your children live under the yoke of a government that tells you its for your own good while taking away the rights clearly expressed in the Constitution? Please, for all of us and your future progeny look at the big picture.

[geetrue]

Didn't the U.S. State Depatment or wait a minute I think it was the FBI fire a lady for reading the stuff they found in Iraq too fast.

She was a muslim lady (not bad looking either). She was reading and translating the files they found over there, but she was right here in Wahington, D.C.

Then she complained that her supervisor's had told her to slow down, because of job protection. ABC got hold of it and reported it on the air, but she got fired anyway for telling the truth.

They don't have the manpower to read 1/10 of the suspcious mail ...

Plus one last note:
You know those little post offices that aren't really post offices? They're just middle men post offices that charge you a few cents extra to keep you from going to the regular post office.

Well they have the right to check anything you send through them. I know a lady just got busted here recently for mailing marijuana and a large amount of ecstasy to a friend in Florida. They simply said, she acted quility and they opened her parcel as soon as she left. That's when they found the illegal drugs. No search warrant there.

[Ducimus]

Hypothetical:

Lets say in 5 years from now, the "war on terror" is still an oval office buzzword, and we're all requried to have indentification/authorization papers to travel from state to state. You know... so they can spot terroist movements :roll:.. I wonder if anyone will care. After all, if you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. :roll:

[waste gate]

Didn't the U.S. State Depatment or wait a minute I think it was the FBI fire a lady for reading the stuff they found in Iraq too fast.

She was a muslim lady (not bad looking either). She was reading and translating the files they found over there, but she was right here in Wahington, D.C.

Then she complained that her supervisor's had told her to slow down, because of job protection. ABC got hold of it and reported it on the air, but she got fired anyway for telling the truth.

They don't have the manpower to read 1/10 of the suspcious mail ...

Plus one last note:
You know those little post offices that aren't really post offices? They're just middle men post offices that charge you a few cents extra to keep you from going to the regular post office.

Well they have the right to check anything you send through them. I know a lady just got busted here recently for mailing marijuana and a large amount of ecstasy to a friend in Florida. They simply said, she acted quility and they opened her parcel as soon as she left. That's when they found the illegal drugs. No search warrant there.


Well that might be called reasonable suspision. But this signing statement doesn't even meet that low threshold . The signing statement will and does violate the fourth amendment.

[baggygreen]

The way i read it, its no biggie - i presume it will only be used when there is good reason. Besides, like people have said, if you got nothing to hide...

After all, it was the yanks who voted in bush - and the best part is, in a year or two you can vote him out again!

[Kapitan_Phillips]

To fly to the US is almost as hard as going to Moskow during the cold war. :yep:

I had two great holidays there in America back in the early 90's and some day I would like to go back, so I hope I don't run into a wall of regulations on that day.


See my sig? She's all the way over in Newnan, Georgia. I sent letters that'd make Bush's cheeks redder than a ripe tomato. :rotfl:

[waste gate]

The way i read it, its no biggie - i presume it will only be used when there is good reason

What if it isn't? Some people have an agenda and some want to move up in the ranks within their own organization. Are you willing to give up your rights so that someone can get a promotion?

[TteFAboB]

They don't have the manpower to read 1/10 of the suspcious mail ...

And even if they did, it would be a waste of time and resources, given the high amount of possible "false positive" results. What to do then? Conclusion from the PDF I linked to:


So how should one find bad guys? The
most efficient, effective approach—and the
one that protects civil liberties—is the one
suggested by 9/11: pulling the strings that
connect bad guys to other plotters.
Searching for terrorists must begin with
actionable information, and it must follow
logically through the available data toward
greater knowledge. Predictive data mining
always provides “information,” but useful
knowledge comes from context and from
inferences drawn from known facts about
known people and events.
The Fourth Amendment is a help, not a
hindrance: It guides the investigator toward
specific facts and rational inferences. When
they focus on following leads, investigators
can avoid the mistaken goal of attempting to
“predict” terrorist attacks, an effort certain to
flood investigators with false positives, to
waste resources, and to open the door to
infringements of civil liberties. That approach
focuses our national security effort on developing
information about terrorism plotters,
their plans, and associates. It offers no panacea
or technological quick fix to the security
dilemmas created by terrorism. But there is no
quick fix. Predictive data mining is not a sharp
enough sword, and it will never replace traditional
investigation and intelligence, because
it cannot predict precisely enough who will be
the next bad guy.
Since 9/11 there has been a great deal of
discussion about whether data mining can
prevent acts of terrorism. In fact, the most
efficient means of detecting and preempting
terrorism have been within our grasp all
along. Protecting America requires no predictive-
data-mining technologies.
Indeed, if there is a lesson to be learned
from 9/11, it is not very groundbreaking. It is
this: Enable investigators to efficiently dis-
cover, access, and aggregate relevant information
related to actionable suspects. Period.
Sufficient dedication of national resources to
more precisely “pull the strings” offers the
best chance of detecting and preempting
future acts of terrorism.

OK, but are you willing to let your children live under the yoke of a government that tells you its for your own good while taking away the rights clearly expressed in the Constitution? Please, for all of us and your future progeny look at the big picture.

Hehe, no way. I recognize the paradox, understand the problem but if you want me to take sides, I side against this signing statement, in favour of the 4th Amendment. So feel free to open all letters from terrorists & suspects, if the warrants are too slow for the shady suspects, bummer, pass the letters over to the CIA then.

[nightdagger]

What about the cost of this?

It's not just the 4th Amendment, it's the tax and public deficit. Who'll open the letters? Who'll transport them? Will delays occur?

This "tension" has no solution. If we forget about our rights and what they have costed our ancestors then when the war is over we may not get them back. We need to crack down on terror cells at the same time that we need to uphold our tradition of freedom.

We need people defending the 4th Amendment. And we need people keeping terrorists at bay.

Here's a good quote about attempting to collect information to profile terrorists:


Suppose, for example, that a
test for a particular disease accurately detects
the disease (reports a true positive) 99 percent
of the time and inaccurately reports the presence
of the disease (false positive) 1 percent of
the time. Suppose also that only one in a thousand,
or 0.1 percent of the population, has
that disease. Finally, suppose that if the test
indicates the presence of disease the way to
confirm it is with a biopsy, or the taking of a
tissue sample from the potential victim’s body.
It would seem that a test this good should
be used on everyone. After all, in a population
of 300 million people, 300,000 people
have the disease, and running the test on the
entire population would reveal the disease in
297,000 of the victims. But it would cause 10
times that number—nearly three million people—
to undergo an unnecessary biopsy. If the
test were run annually, every 5 years, or every
10 years, the number of people unnecessarily
affected would rise accordingly.
In his book The Naked Crowd, George
Washington University law professor Jeffrey
Rosen discusses false positive rates in a system
that might have been designed to identify the
19 hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Assuming a 99 percent accuracy rate, searching
our population of nearly 300,000,000,
some 3,000,000 people would be identified as
potential terrorists.


If it had 99% accuracy, that wouldn't identify 3 million people as terrorists. That would mean that if there are 1000 terrorists in the USA we would either catch all but 10 and 10 innocent people would be accused.

There's no way to achieve 99% accuracy, though, and no way to check the accuracy of any method in use because we can't have a definitive count of all of the terrorists in the US.

I dunno, it's kind of hard to explain. And in any case, they may not read the mail to prevent a terrorist attack. They may find someone who they know is a terrorist and monitor him/her to find more terrorists without tipping all of them off. In that case, a warrant, and therefore the 4th amendment, could be a hinderance because the hypothetical terrorist could find out that he/she is being watched and avoid incriminating anyone in the same terror cell.

[The Avon Lady]

"They who are willing to give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither"

Author unknown, but commonly attributed to Benjamin Franklin (and less commonly to Thomas Jefferson).

Some polls indicate that a lot of people are willing to do just that, whether it's gun control or reading our mail. I say no.
One of the most abused quotations on the Internet! :yep:

The author is verified as Franklin. From WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin):
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"
And the question is obvious:

What essential liberty are any of you giving up? Do any of you really believe that a warrant will be issued to open your mail specifically and for no relevant reason? And in this nuclear (dirty or otherwise) and chemical day and age, do you really think that the concern here is only "a little Temporary Safety"?

Here's a more relevant quote:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

Most of you recognize that as the quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Whether he said it or not, the quote reflects what actually occurred over 60 years ago.

Over 5 years after 9/11 and after following fellow American opinions as expressed since then and as demonstrated by many on this thread, I can sadly say that a large part of America has rolled over and gone back to sleep.

[Ducimus]

Most of you recognize that as the quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Whether he said it or not, the quote reflects what actually occurred over 60 years ago.

Over 5 years after 9/11 and after following fellow American opinions as expressed since then and as demonstrated by many on this thread, I can sadly say that a large part of America has rolled over and gone back to sleep.

Im a little tired of people trying to equate the "war on terror" to WW2. Little hard to declare and wage a conventional war against a nationless entity that knows no borders, nor wages a war in the conventional sense.

back on topic...

"Papers... papers please....
Your papers are not in order, we're going to have to detain you."

We're not going to win the "war on terror" by slowly devolving into a police state. Signing statements allowing the government to circumvent the law to nose into peoples mail (normally a federal offense) is one step in that direction. They already watchdog the internet searching for "items of intrest". THey already evesdrop on phonecalls. Now their going to go through our mail. i mean christ, the CIA is openly recruting for "clandestine services" on the local radio stations.

One thing i learned in the military is that complacency kills. No bull****. I wonder if it can also kill a nation. I think we are slowly erroding into a police state, but were being bull****ted about it so we dont openly see it. One day people are going to wake up, and wonder what happened to the land of the free.

Exaggeration? Sure, but if get more people Bush in office that are slowly increasing the power of the executive branch...... maybe not. Bush, according to the BAR assocation has issued more then 750 signing statements. More then any US president in history. It's in effect, a line item veto, or a sort of nullifaction of what a bill was supposed to do. It allows him to indirectly override bills passed by congress, and congress can't do a damn thing about it. .. and unless im mistaken, congress represents the will of the people more then any other body in our government.

[The Avon Lady]

Im a little tired
Precisely. Roll over and go back to bed.

Let's rewind a bit.......
Im a little tired of people trying to equate the "war on terror" to WW2.
It isn't. It has the potential to be much worse.
Little hard to declare and wage a conventional war against a nationless entity that knows no borders, nor wages a war in the conventional sense.
Thanks for backing up my point.
back on topic...

"Papers... papers please....
Your papers are not in order, we're going to have to detain you."

We're not going to win the "war on terror" by slowly devolving into a police state.
Who asked anyone to legislate carrying around national IDs and allow for street corner interrogations?

Hype.
Signing statements allowing the government to circumvent the law to nose into peoples mail (normally a federal offense) is one step in that direction. They already watchdog the internet searching for "items of intrest". THey already evesdrop on phonecalls. Now their going to go through our mail.
And again I asked how this was permissable at wartime in the past if it's so obviously unconstitutional?
i mean christ, the CIA is openly recruting for "clandestine services" on the local radio stations.
They'll get what they pay for.

One thing i learned in the military is that complacency kills. No bull****. I wonder if it can also kill a nation. I think we are slowly erroding into a police state, but were being bull****ted about it so we dont openly see it. One day people are going to wake up, and wonder what happened to the land of the free.
At this rate, it will be caught with its pants down.

[Ducimus]

Thanks for backing up my point.

Backing up your point wasnt my intent. There is no such thing as a war on terror. The whole notion of it being a "war" is sheer ****ing propganda. How can an entire nation be war with a handfull of mass murdering ragheads, and their ideas born out of religous hatred as if they were a soverign nation? You can hunt and kill the men responible like the criminals they are, but you wont kill their ideas. Going about it like were charging up the shores of Normandy will only justify their ideas to other arabs, and they pick up their cause as a result. In short, thing go for bad to worse.

Again, THIS IS NOT WW2. Its an entirely different problem, Riding on the coat tails of history so we feel wam and fuzzy is not the way to go about it.


Who asked anyone to legislate carrying around national IDs and allow for street corner interrogations?

The insintuation was the way things are going, that is entirely possible.

Heres what i said earlier in sarchasm:
"Lets say in 5 years from now, the "war on terror" is still an oval office buzzword, and we're all requried to have indentification/authorization papers to travel from state to state. You know... so they can spot terroist movements :roll: .. I wonder if anyone will care. After all, if you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.:roll:"

hence later i said, "papers... papers please".


Now, lastly, Since your from Isreal, i say this as an individual american citizen.

My country, My problem, I'm entitled to my beleifs on current isssues in my country and ill be damned if ill put up with some Israily telling me what to do or think or about how my country should be or do is this that or the other thing.

[The Avon Lady]

Now, lastly, Since your from Isreal, i say this as an individual american citizen.

My country, My problem, I'm entitled to my beleifs on current isssues in my country and ill be damned if ill put up with some Israily telling me what to do or think or about how my country should be or do is this that or the other thing.
I'm a US citizen, as is my husband, his parents and siblings and our children.

But even if I wasn't, just how do you think you would not "put up with some Israeli"? Who told you what to do or what to think? Or are you alergic to other people's opinions?

Think before you type.

[Sea Demon]

Over 5 years after 9/11 and after following fellow American opinions as expressed since then and as demonstrated by many on this thread, I can sadly say that a large part of America has rolled over and gone back to sleep.

Oh Lordy.......Don't get me started. :roll: :D

[U-533]

Honestly people...:roll:

If you have nothing to hide then why let it bother you?


Complacency like this, is how Dictator's come to power.


yes ... yes ... I agree.

But if you know the kinda "Good ol Boys" I know and run with... the kind that can shoot a gnat from a deer's ear at 400 yards, I don't believe that will happen with out a fight.

Unless we let them take away our weapons.

Those worms are still in the can at the moment.
But I do have to say there seems to be less of us "Good ol Boys" now days.

[Fish]

STEED: not to suggest anything (so DONT anyone), but a presidential assasination will most likely happen before it goes that far, to be a police state would have an opposition rate of about 98%+.:yep:

To fly to the US is almost as hard as going to Moskow during the cold war. :yep:


Its not that hard. In fact:

On May 29, 1987, Mathias Rust, a 19-year-old German, flew his Cessna 172 from Finland, crossing through the Soviet defense systems undetected, and landed his aircraft in Red Square, Moscow. Rust was tried and sentenced to four years in jail but was freed in 1988. Soviet Defence Minister Alexander Koldunov was dismissed, and there were shake-ups in the armed services.

(true story)

Yeah, I remember that story. :)

[Fish]

The way i read it, its no biggie - i presume it will only be used when there is good reason. Besides, like people have said, if you got nothing to hide...

After all, it was the yanks who voted in bush - and the best part is, in a year or two you can vote him out again!
Didn't start the Stasi in a simular way?
So, whats next?

[P_Funk]

I am constantly annoyed and angered by those who keep plugging the idea that we're in the middle of some continuous state of war with "them" and that we ought to be less worried about our governments taking a bit of our freedom here and a bit of our freedom there because 5 years ago some guy sent a throng of extremists to the US.

Avon Lady keeps referring to WW2. Theres that constant intimation that we're fighting for our very survival. That cause someone got through the perimeter and made a of a mess in New York that somehow that's the same as Fascism in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. I don't mean to minimize 9/11 but frankly I find it offensive to the memory of WW2 to try and say that we're even in the same ball park.

[Ducimus]

I am constantly annoyed and angered by those who keep plugging the idea that we're in the middle of some continuous state of war with "them" and that we ought to be less worried about our governments taking a bit of our freedom here and a bit of our freedom there because 5 years ago some guy sent a throng of extremists to the US.

Avon Lady keeps referring to WW2. Theres that constant intimation that we're fighting for our very survival. That cause someone got through the perimeter and made a of a mess in New York that somehow that's the same as Fascism in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. I don't mean to minimize 9/11 but frankly I find it offensive to the memory of WW2 to try and say that we're even in the same ball park.


Im along those lines. I resist the notion of "war on terror" for one major reason.

People, human beings, we think in language. If you can control or influence what lanaguage people use, you can control or influence thought. The Bush administration often uses words that play on american sentiments for this very reason i think.

The term "war on terror" conjures images of the nation in a world war.. Like were all supposed to pitch in to the effort and make sacrafice - and i think we should. However, where's are all the public support? No no not bumper stickers, yellow ribbons, or American flag pom pom's.

No, im taking about REAL support. Real war mobilization. I dont see or hear about any mass wartime production to keep new Humvee's or Bradley's rolling off the assembly line, or mass produection make sure theres no shortage of any needed equipment, no rosey the riveters, no draft, no local community drives asking for people to chip in whatever scrap metal they could donate for the war effort. None of that. Just the goverment, putting us under a magnifying glass, and nothing more. But since we think of it in terms of "war", we're more apt to accept whatever the bush administation decides to do.

Now this isnt to say that the goverment shouldn't make things harder for Terrorists internally. We need to. However there has to be red line that the goverment should not ever cross. When our own goverment starts skirting the laws that exist to ensure our rights as citizens, laws that our founding fathers put into place for a reason, and arguably out of experience,....well.. somethings not right about that.

[Sailor Steve]

The author is verified as Franklin. From WikiQuote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin):
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"
Nice find, but it doesn't verify it: "and denies that he wrote it". It does state that it is likely Franklin who wrote it, but that's what I said in the first place.

And it's still an essential truism; "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile".

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Avon Lady keeps referring to WW2. Theres that constant intimation that we're fighting for our very survival. That cause someone got through the perimeter and made a of a mess in New York that somehow that's the same as Fascism in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. I don't mean to minimize 9/11 but frankly I find it offensive to the memory of WW2 to try and say that we're even in the same ball park.


Totally agree with this. This 'War on Terror' does threaten the lives of innocent people, but nowhere near to the same extent as World War 2 did. In my opinion, all it really is, is a western culture trying to enforce its own methods on a region that really doesnt want it. No offense intended for any Arabs, or Middle Eastern residents, but the Middle East isnt exactly known for running like a well oiled machine (no pun intended)

And whilst Saddam is dead, now its pretty much open season on governmental power of Iraq, as it has left the various clans with very little resistance if (and when) the coalition's troops pull out. Its my opinion that in due course, we'll see another Saddam.

I must admit, it did pride me to see Britain and America working together again, but I feel war is and was a somewhat rushed, brutish decision. I dont remember hearing much about negotiations before we all went in, and every day people die because democracy is such a huge step for a place which has relied heavily on shows of strength and decisiveness in order to maintain peace (or a form of it)

But back to my point. Iraq and the War on Terror shouldnt be compared to World War 2 in any way, maybe it shares some similarities with Vietnam (but I dont know much about it) but its still just a group of people who want to incite the hatred, its not really a war, its a manhunt.

Speaking of which, where the HELL is Bin Laden? Everyone seems to have forgotten about that sod.

[U-533]

The way i read it, its no biggie - i presume it will only be used when there is good reason. Besides, like people have said, if you got nothing to hide...

After all, it was the yanks who voted in bush - and the best part is, in a year or two you can vote him out again!

It's not a biggie .... It's just a biggie if it is abused. I don't believe for a moment that the FBI or CIA or ATF or whatever 3 letter fed agency is gonna come kicking in someones door with out reason.

Now if you start hanging with the local "Rag Head Club" and buying lots of stuff that you normally would not buy and talking about how everyone should die if they are not Muslim ... Yeah ... then I think you could expect a visit a nice one at first but the second (if there is a 2nd time)time would be nasty for sure...

Again I reiterate If your doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear.

Unless your one of them people who believe there is no wrong or right just what you feel is best...then you can justify everything and live a happy and content life.:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

BTW President Bush will have to leave office... So we can elect a President who will lead us further into so called "World Peace" just to be denied such by placating the very people who seek to bring America down

[dean_acheson]

Theres that constant intimation that we're fighting for our very survival. That cause someone got through the perimeter and made a of a mess in New York that somehow that's the same as Fascism in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. I don't mean to minimize 9/11 but frankly I find it offensive to the memory of WW2 to try and say that we're even in the same ball park.


Well, for all that matter, what difference did it make to us Americans if Hitler kept all of Europe and just killed a few Jews and Homosexuals? I mean, WWII wasn't our fight, and we shouldn't have been in the Phillipines or Hawaii anyway, since those were just symbols of evil western imperialism....

For God's sake, this is Western Civilization and all that I hold dear we are talking about. We are at war with the new Fascism, Islamic Fascism, and instead of just killing Jews and Homosexuals and Gypsies (sp), all of us who don't put our women in Burkas and/or pray three times a day in loud chants facing some hole in the desert called Mecca are considered infidels and get either to convert or face the sharp end of the stick.

If you think that mail wasn't opened in any of America's conflicts with other powers, you have to be slightly off your rocker. Most of the faux Constituional Rights that individuals on the left (since BushCo. took power, and that would have been just fine under Clinton) wring their hands about are simply creations of those great years of the Warren Court.

I'm not sure what all this talk about the forth amendment is about, mine reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
To me that doesn't have a bloody thing to do with taking a piece of mail to a government office and asking the government to carry it to a different place in this country, or to another country, and having someone else open it.

Does junk mail to my house have constitutional protection?

Come on, that is insane. This reading of the Bill of Rights is really off tack. Now, if unlimited searches a seizures of privately owned automobiles, or my guns, or letters that I was writing in my house was ok'ed, then I would have a problem. But that is why we have a judical branch of the government, which was, the last time I checked, a very adaquate check on the power of the executive AND the legislative, who scare me just as much as anyone else.

Whew! that was a rant. Sorry.

[GSpector]

Hello All,

I for one am not to thrilled about this signing.

I do not have a problem with the quantity of Bills signed by President Bush, only the quality of what he's signing.

Since the U.S. Constitution was writen for the purpose of protecting the U.S. Citizens, I see this as another step in chipping away at what we have in this Country that makes it different then any other.

Now, if the Government wants to read mail sent to, or from anyone NOT a U.S. Citizen, then I don't see how the Constitution can protect them. Having a Visa to visit this Country is not and should not be concidered a FREE PASS.

As for having Papers to cross from State to State, it was Mrs Clinton that wanted a National ID Card. I always thought my State ID or State Drivers licence was good enough for me. Now why this 1st Lady (at the time) had any business in any policy making above any other Citizen is above me and should never have been allowed to be present in the meetings.

I think it would be interesting (maybe scary) to take the Constitution to Congress and compare it to the current laws and see just how it would stand up. I would think we would at that time see just how much of it was whittled away.:cry:

[U-533]

Hello All,

I for one am not to thrilled about this signing.

I do not have a problem with the quantity of Bills signed by President Bush, only the quality of what he's signing.

Since the U.S. Constitution was writen for the purpose of protecting the U.S. Citizens, I see this as another step in chipping away at what we have in this Country that makes it different then any other.

Now, if the Government wants to read mail sent to, or from anyone NOT a U.S. Citizen, then I don't see how the Constitution can protect them. Having a Visa to visit this Country is not and should not be concidered a FREE PASS.

As for having Papers to cross from State to State, it was Mrs Clinton that wanted a National ID Card. I always thought my State ID or State Drivers licence was good enough for me. Now why this 1st Lady (at the time) had any business in any policy making above any other Citizen is above me and should never have been allowed to be present in the meetings.

I think it would be interesting (maybe scary) to take the Constitution to Congress and compare it to the current laws and see just how it would stand up. I would think we would at that time see just how much of it was whittled away.:cry:

Hello GSpector nice to have ya aboard.

Please don't get me started again about the Clintons... It has been a horrible disgrace to my country... and may be for sometime to come... after President Clinton and her husband left office, I thought it would be all over but NNOOOOOoooo.........:huh: :damn:

.....................................:roll: ................................

sorry

Hello anyway GSpector:up: :up:

[geetrue]

This is a true statement and gives the right tools to the right people ...


nightdagger

I dunno, it's kind of hard to explain. And in any case, they may not read the mail to prevent a terrorist attack. They may find someone who they know is a terrorist and monitor him/her to find more terrorists without tipping all of them off. In that case, a warrant, and therefore the 4th amendment, could be a hinderance because the hypothetical terrorist could find out that he/she is being watched and avoid incriminating anyone in the same terror cell.


I don't want my FBI to be frustrated ...

If your worried about personal freedoms do a google search on the one billion dollars that was spent of our tax dollars to change the constitution of the United States in a time of calamity ...

I have the book around here somewhere and if I to ... I'll find it ... Of course this will only happen if America is in a sad state of affairs, but maybe that's why it's now a law.

__________________