Bush signing statement may allow mail opening without a warrant

[Stinger]

I know this... But when I jumped in to respond to you, You were not talking about this specific example now were you?
You were not talking about searching mail for powder or ticking....

Sure I was.

You were talking about correspondence/communication.

Well that is what a letter is.

There is no way to determine exigent circumstances for correspondence, so therefore, a warrant should be required when, or obtained after, opening the correspondence.

If it has white powder coming out of it..............

Can you explain to me how there could ever be exigent circumstances to open a normal letter or piece of mail with only written words????

Can you explain to me how opening a piece of flat mail, with no other suspicion

Ahh the key is there is suspicion that the letter contains something dangerous and poses an imminent threat.

How is that unreasonable?

 

[Stinger]

And therein lies the EXACT problem. Bush has already shown in his spying without a warrant that he will use these signing statements to define "exigent circumstances" as whatever he wants to justify his spying, searching mail....etc.

Warrants aren't required for foreign signals intelligence interception. Never have been.

Are you aware we tapped phone cables going into the former Soviet Union and no warrants were required?

 

[Caine]

Sure I was.

No, because if that was the only thing the signing statement was referring to, then he would be a pompous idiot to have even written it (writing stuff making it sound like he is making policy when he is not, just to feel special about himself). And the media would not have made it an issue at all, like the other hundreds of signing statements that have been made with no mention.

If it has white powder coming out of it..............

Yes, but a signing statement was not needed for something like this. And we all know that.

Can you explain to me how there could ever be exigent circumstances to open a normal letter or piece of mail with only written words????

Thats what I asked you. Why didn't you answer?

Ahh the key is there is suspicion that the letter contains something dangerous and poses an imminent threat.

How is that unreasonable?

What kind of probable cause would you have, without even reading it, that the letter contains some sort of dangerous information that poses as an imminent threat??????
Consent, Probable Cause, Warrant, or Exigent Circumstances (based upon what you know, not what you "suspect"), are needed to make a search reasonable.

Otherwise, the search is unreasonable and does not qualify for the requirements set forth in the 4th Amendment.

 

[RightinNYC]

...The real problem here is in the fact that this statement is not written in English. Its insane that our government can create laws and policy in a language that most Americans can't understand. "Exigent circumstances". That is a bullcrap statement. What is an Exigent circumstance? If it means, "this letter is about the explode a bunch of anthrax everywhere" thats different from "the president desperately wants to open a letter". And the dictionary definition doesn't help in the slightest. Its pretty hard to have accountable politicians when you can't even understand them.

So the nation's legal system should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?

 

[Stinger]

No, because if that was the only thing the signing statement was referring to, then he would be a pompous idiot to have even written it (writing stuff making it sound like he is making policy when he is not, just to feel special about himself).

Not at all.

And the media would not have made it an issue at all, like the other hundreds of signing statements that have been made with no mention.

The left makes an issue out of everything we do to win this war.

Yes, but a signing statement was not needed for something like this. And we all know that.

It just confirms what is your object? YOU are making an issue out of it.

What kind of probable cause would you have, without even reading it, that the letter contains some sort of dangerous information that poses as an imminent threat??????

How about white powder?

Consent, Probable Cause, Warrant, or Exigent Circumstances (based upon what you know, not what you "suspect"), are needed to make a search reasonable.

Which is exactly what the signing statement is addressing. What is your beef?

Otherwise, the search is unreasonable and does not qualify for the requirements set forth in the 4th Amendment.

But if there is a liquid or powder coming out of it it would not be unreasonable. And it would be exigent exactly as the signing statement addresses.

You guys prove the point. No matter what we do you object.