What is Digg?86 Comments
- zweben, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I wouldn't call that innofensive. I would call that lying.
- Asteya, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20He can't do it legally...signing statements aren't law. He's just letting us all know that he doesn't care about the law or our civil liberties.
- emfb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can recall, no one has challenged him in court regarding the legitimacy of his "signing statements".
From what I remember "signing statements" are used to:
1) clarify points within the law he attaches a statement to
2) give implementation directions to the area of government responsible for implementing a law passed by congress.
In this role he is exercising his executive powers.
However, the president does not have the constitutional authority to arbitrarily dictate law. Nowhere in the constitution are "signing statements" mentioned as a means to create a law.
This statement carries as much legal weight as his crayon renditions of ponies in his day planner.
Until the SCOTUS says these statements carry weight I refuse to recognize his 'statements'. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This topic was already discussed here:
http://digg.com/politics/Bush_signing_statement_claims_he_can_search_our_mail_without_a_warrant
Here is the bill. (PDF warning): Here is the bill. (PDF warning): http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7709/hr6407pgo.pdf
You won't see anything in the bill regarding surveillance.
These are just signing statements are are NOT de facto law.
He can make a signing statement that he is a banana, it doesn't actually make him one.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I've had my mail searched without a warrant before. I often get packages containing banana bread and apparently a dense package with grease stains grabs the postal service's attention. Twice I have had my bread opened, searched, and closed (poorly). One time it took them 14 days to send me my "express" package of bread. Do you have any idea what banana bread looks like after 14 days without refrigeration? I called USPS and inquired as to how this was legal as it was not an international shipment and they informed me that the postal service has always been able to open packages/letters they deem "suspicious" . . . no warrant required.
- skymt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Sorry to burst your collective bubble, but signing statements have not been shown to have the force of law. The "LEGALLY" in the title is pure FUD until the issue is brought up in court and a precedent can be set.
(IANAL, of course. But I do read a lot of blogs.) - grendel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Oh where did I read this before...umm?
Oh it was here on Digg on front page with nearly 1000 diggs.
http://digg.com/politics/Bush_Government_Can_Open_Your_Mail - burkinaboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Direct link to the White House PR/signing statement: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061220-6.html
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I've got nothing to hide, except, y'know, that BOMB I'M IMPORTING FROM EGYPT. but don't worry, its blast radius is only about 20 ft.
(the sad thing is, the next time you hear about me, the article will have 3,000 diggs) - mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6please no one else respond to him lets stay on topic
on topic: I'd say they've gone to far but I think we passed that point years ago. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8President Bush can't read my mail.. I don't think he can read.
- sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Right, because when you look for someone to represent the national wishes of 300 million people, carry out public policy, and promote democracy worldwide, you really want a guy who doesn't care what others think.
- Senturion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Why does America stand idly by and let their government strip them of their rights and freedoms?
I always hear about pro-gun NRA types who say the right to bear arms is essential to ensure the populace is armed in case the government ever gets out of hand and needs to be kept in check.
Umm...what are you waiting for?
How long is America going to let the pillars of their status as the worlds greatest democracy slip away under the guise of security against an unknown foe?
It really is depressing to see what is happening to a once great country.
Take this as America bashing if you like, but it really isn't, I am worried about what the trickle down effect of a great democracy selling out its freedom will have on other democracies of the world, such as my own.
Why do you all just let it happen? - groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@avahlkamp
Did you read the relevant part of Bush's signing statement? The Bill itself, as signed, is not a problem. Part of Bush's signing statement is.
You might know the process a Bill goes through to get to law but you are ignoring the topic of discussion. It's not some kind of conspiracy by the "evil" media that is "out to get Bush". The mainstream media didn't even break it.
"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."
Doesn't sound like a conspiracy by the media to me. - mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4As far as I know, the executive branch does have the authority to read suspicous mail, as long as they go to a FISA court within 72 hours of opening the mail in order to receive a retro-active warrant. It works much the same way as phone tapping. The government can tap your phone and then they go to the FISA court and ask for a warrant. Before you curse Bush for this, you should realize that this rule has been in place for a long time - ever since Jimmy Carter's administration in 1978.
- Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Look how inoffensively he declares it:
"Today I have signed into law H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act." The Act is designed to improve the quality of postal service for Americans and to strengthen the free market for delivery services." - Jussles, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I thought that gray-haired guy sifting through my mailbox looked familiar....
- groovychk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@heliox
Actually the bill (law) is at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6407enr.txt.pdf
The CBO link is just budgetary numbers and such. - rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4He can now read our emails, listen to our phone calls, arrest us without a warrant, torture us in inhuman ways, keep the evidence from us, detain us indefinitely or assassinate us. This is nuts. What did we do to deserve this? How could this happen in the republic we thought was a democracy? Most Americans are good people. Do the majority of citizens know this has happened?
- ozziedog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Bush can now LEGALLY read all your mail. But someones got to help him with the big words.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@itsalright2
Aaaaand.... you get a block. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Absoluty right Groovy, I cut and pasted the wrong link.
- chainsawd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3First of all, Bush isn't going to read your mail. Second, nobody in the government is going to read your mail. Sorry, you're not that important. Third, if you are that important and the government feels the need to read your mail, you should really reconsider how you conduct your illegal activities.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Damn terrorists.
- 1angrychristian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2like they weren't doing exactly that before bush was president ... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
- lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Signing statements are Bush's way of granting pardons to himself and his cronies without naming names.
You can be sure this is in there because they are ALREADY reading your mail and are afraid of being prosecuted when it finally comes out. - veenenen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As much as I like bush bashing, signing statements can only be used to clarify points not make new law. You may wonder why then bush put something about national security in a postal service bill. The reason is that he was clarifying that as much as is already allow by law the executive would search people's mail. Meaning that he wasn't making new law, but say he would use the authority he already felt he held. Therefore, if you feel the executive shouldn't have this authority get congress to change the law. Look on the bright side at least Bush is starting to give us the heads up when he's wants to infringe liberties now.
- sfatoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yes, because pulling out our guns and shooting up government officials is exactly the way that we should fix the problems with our government.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's a misleading heading line, the fact that he made signing statement asserting that he can read mail doesn't necessarily make it the case. Indeed Bush has gained a reputation for claiming legally dubious powers.
- thesixthdesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Millions and millions of old diggs.
http://digg.com/search?section=news&s=bush+mail - sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Bush just wants your Cial1s.
- Dhalsim007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right, and I'm sure wants to read MY mail. He can have the Publishers' Clearing House crap...and all those pesky student loan re-fi junk cards. Maybe he'll want my FHM and Maxim too?
You know, if it's a security concern, I'm perfectly OK with it. No one should have to be afraid of opening a letter bomb or an anthrax-filled envelope.
Despite what above posters say. It IS all about intent. And I doubt the CIA, NSA and FBI care about your mail. - kmg365, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"“The American Bar Association opposes, as contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the misuse of presidential signing statements …” Further, that the ABA “urges Congress to enact legislation requiring the President promptly to submit to Congress an official copy of all signing statements” he or she issues."
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news080806_1.html - seeprompt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1lol he probibly saw the new episodes of 24 and now hes like "oh *****!"
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It's called a zip-lock.
- arcangelgabriel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Wait, you get international shipments of Banana Bread?
- sixister, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'll make sure I do all my terrorizing in person.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Banana bread, what were you thinking. Sorry, Sorry.
Please take this baby. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3In fact the signing statement can be used as a sign of bad faith, if Bush's ass ever gets impeached for manhandling the Constitution.
- QurrUm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Uhhh...what?
Offtopic loser. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Scoopscoop!
- mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@avahlkamp
diggers going off on crazy rants is what makes digg so much fun - jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Zweben - Did you even read the bill or signing statement? The bill he signed was a reform of the postal system, etc. ... it was a separate statement he made about mail security that is the cause of this misplaced uproar.
- definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ah, more conspiracy socialists. I love it. Let's stay on point and talk about SIGNING statements...and blocked.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1he can take those 1000000 dollar with interest checks that come in the mail with advertisements from unions
such as vote for _____ s/hes in our best interest - jdibiase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2For all of you that think this is about email, read the story, the bill and the signing statement again ... it's about mail, you know, the old-fashioned kind that gets delivered to your house. It cracks me up that you don't even know what the story is about and yet find opportunity to jump on the bash/impeach Bush bandwagon.
Second, here's the relevant section of the 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."
Now, let's think about what is being said, and why it is being said. First, notice that he's saying that a item of mail can be opened when "permissible ... to conduct searches ... to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials ...." Does anybody remember that there have been several instances of anthrax being sent through the mail and some people becoming ill, and some even dying as a result? Does anybody remember the Unabomber, who sent bombs through the mail? Do you know that it is perfectly legal, and by most accounts, even desirable, to conduct warrantless searches in certain circumstances? Why do you assume that President Bush is trying to spy on innocent people? Can you even fathom legitimate reasons to open suspicious mail? I'm not giving up any rights in order to be comfortable in knowing that the mail is that much safer. - iofthestorm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Words like lol, pwn3d, n00b, and l337sau(e are sure to cause Bush some problems.
- Karmalary, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Given a choice between that letter bomb detonating in a containment unit at the post office and it blowing my arm off, rip away George!
- Daemus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, yes. However, the signing statement was talking about postal mail, not email.
- tkambler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The mainstream press DID cover this topic, thoroughly. Either you don't get enough news, or you should listen to NPR more often. :)
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is