Bush claims authority to open Americans' mail

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

So you easily accept the government taking your rights away?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Did everybody suddenly forget why we have Constitution?

PD

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Did everybody suddenly forget why we have Constitution?

PD

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

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by waste gate

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.

Originally Posted by 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:

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 .. I wonder if anyone will care. After all, if you havent done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by STEED

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:

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?