Homeland security opening private mail

[jdinca]

Data mining, is just that, mining (fishing). Either you have a right or you do not. While, as I have mentioned, there have always been exceptions (hot pursuit, etc.) to the requirement of otherwise obtaining a Warrant before searching a person's home, property or communications, the very idea of dropping the concept of requiring a warrant (regardless of what Administration does it) is a bad precedent. Either you have the right as a citizen, or you do not. Right now you feel safe allowing them this power, but what about the next Administration that comes along?

For me though, the issue is that this is not a new thing. Everybody is jumping on the current administration because those on the far left hate the president and will do anything they can to paint him in a bad light. Clinton authorized an unwarranted search of Jonathan Pollard's home. Not wire tapping but a full entry and search. Not once was there public outcry of this warrantless search. BTW, I support his decision to do it.

Reagan did it, Carter did it, presidents before them did it. The courts have said on several occasions that the president has the right to do it. I think the current situation is an overreaction based on the above reason.

I will agree with you on one point. Data mining pisses me off. That's not targeting a suspicious individual, that's trolling. But I'm willing to bet that it won't end, even if laws are passed to prevent it. The intelligence community will just get better at hiding it.

 

[Flying Crane]

You can have privacy, but not if you use anything "invented" after like 1800. Basically only way to communicate and keep it between the people talking is to do it in person and buy everything with cash or barter.

Oooh, you just got yerself onto a Watch List, for that piece of advice!

 

[Jonathan Randall]

For me though, the issue is that this is not a new thing. Everybody is jumping on the current administration because those on the far left hate the president and will do anything they can to paint him in a bad light. Clinton authorized an unwarranted search of Jonathan Pollard's home. Not wire tapping but a full entry and search. Not once was there public outcry of this warrantless search. BTW, I support his decision to do it.

Reagan did it, Carter did it, presidents before them did it. The courts have said on several occasions that the president has the right to do it. I think the current situation is an overreaction based on the above reason.

I will agree with you on one point. Data mining pisses me off. That's not targeting a suspicious individual, that's trolling. But I'm willing to bet that it won't end, even if laws are passed to prevent it. The intelligence community will just get better at hiding it.

Yes, but I made it clear that I recognized that this Administration isn't the first, and won't be the last, to do so - just that two wrongs (wrongs in my opinion), don't make a right.

Are you sure it was President Clinton and not President H.W. Bush or Pres. Reagan who searched Pollard's home? I ask, not because I think President Clinton wouldn't, rather because Pollard (a definite traitor) had been in prison for some time by the time President Clinton assumed office.

 

[jdinca]

Yes, but I made it clear that I recognized that this Administration isn't the first, and won't be the last, to do so - just that two wrongs (wrongs in my opinion), don't make a right.

Are you sure it was President Clinton and not President H.W. Bush or Pres. Reagan who searched Pollard's home? I ask, not because I think President Clinton wouldn't, rather because Pollard (a definite traitor) had been in prison for some time by the time President Clinton assumed office.

Sorry, Aldrich Ames.

I think it's appropriate to be vigilant in regards to our civil rights but I also think it's appropriate to be pragmatic and not react from emotion, like so many have. You, to your credit, have not taken that approach. We'll just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say on this issue, because it's only a matter of time before they do.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Once upon a time .... our country believed in this ...



... now, not so much, I guess.

The problem, michael, is 'free from unreasonable searches and seizures' does not mean.....free from ALL Searches and seizures....it just means they must be reasonable. It was decided a LONG time ago that a search of a package originating from a foreign source in to the United States was a reasonable search.

The very foundation of this thread is based on an error. Bush did not allow the Custom's department examine all foreign packages coming in to this country. They had that authority and power for YEARS likely decades. Just as they have the power to search YOU as you enter the country. In fact, searching YOU is far more invasive than searching your packages, but as the article quoted managed to try and put this all in the 'Bush is making America repressive' context, then many of you have a knee-jerk reaction. Again, this isn't an example of a 'lost freedom'....You have no expectation of privacy in receiving foreign correspondance, and have not for quite some time (if ever). You send a letter through the US postal service, and customs has the right to search it...period.

If you're all looking for evidence of the impending collapse in to despotism......this isn't it.

 

[michaeledward]

There is nothing new, under the sun . .

"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."

 

[modarnis]

For those interested in the current state of 4th Amendment law and a historical primer try:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

 

[shesulsa]

The very foundation of this thread is based on an error. Bush did not allow the Custom's department examine all foreign packages coming in to this country. They had that authority and power for YEARS likely decades.

Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security. And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.

Interestingly, a relative of mine lives in Hawaii - and the letters and packages he sends to us are OFTEN opened by the same entity and reclosed. I suppose even Hawaii is considered foreign soil?

 

[jdinca]

Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security. And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.

Interestingly, a relative of mine lives in Hawaii - and the letters and packages he sends to us are OFTEN opened by the same entity and reclosed. I suppose even Hawaii is considered foreign soil?

Given that the Japanese own most of everything there, yeah. :wink1:

 

[Ping898]

Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security. And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.

Interestingly, a relative of mine lives in Hawaii - and the letters and packages he sends to us are OFTEN opened by the same entity and reclosed. I suppose even Hawaii is considered foreign soil?

Your mail is often opened, whenever they want regardless of whether it is from a foreign destination or not. Make friends with people who run the post offices, you'll hear some interesting stories... A lot of the offices now have ink stamps that say you mail can and will be opened that they use on the packages you mail when they mark what way it s being mailed.....all under the umbrella of making you safer...I'd rather have my privacy...

 

[MA-Caver]

At what point as americans do we still have freedom?

In-so-far the freedom to talk about this and be critical of the whole situation without worry (so far) of being reported, investigated, hauled in for questioning, taken to jail (with or without trial) and "shot while trying to escape". Remember that the leading cause of death in the Soviet Union was a sudden 9mm brain hemorrhage.

Our supposed continued loss of inailenable rights at this "trickle" pace should be enough for the American public to say "hey! that's enough!" but Big Government knows better and is trying to convince us all that this is just temporary... until we get those dirty bastards out of our country. Hrmm... uhh, I don't think so pal. Me thinks they need to find a better way, because there always IS another (and better) way to do what must be done.


For some reason a certain beatles song from the white album is playing in my head just now.

 

[Phoenix44]

Everybody is jumping on the current administration because those on the far left hate the president and will do anything they can to paint him in a bad light.

The far right does hate the president. Why do you think that is? Because of the color of his shoes? No, it's exactly because of things like warrantless searches. This president believes that he is not subject to the law. He swore to uphold the Constitution, but he trashes it every chance he gets in order to achieve his aims. That's why he will continue warrantless searches and other breaches of privacy. He can easily get warrants from the FISA court, but he doesn't believe he has to answer to anybody, so he doesn't even make the attempt. He is contemptuous of the Constitution.

 

[Cryozombie]

The far right does hate the president. Why do you think that is? Because of the color of his shoes? No, it's exactly because of things like warrantless searches. This president believes that he is not subject to the law. He swore to uphold the Constitution, but he trashes it every chance he gets in order to achieve his aims. That's why he will continue warrantless searches and other breaches of privacy. He can easily get warrants from the FISA court, but he doesn't believe he has to answer to anybody, so he doesn't even make the attempt. He is contemptuous of the Constitution.

The only thing I disagree with in that statement Phoenix, is that its the President. Its not. (Well it is, but thats too specific of finger pointing) its the GOVERNMENT.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security. And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.

If that were the case, the title would not be 'Homeland security opening private mail' now would it, since the fact that this has been going on since well before the advent of the department of homeland security would suggest that it really has nothing to do with it. No facts in the article point fingers at Bush OR the department of homeland security. The only reason to name the title such as it was, was to insinuate that it DID have something to do with Bush or 'the department of homeland security'.

 

[Henderson]

In-so-far the freedom to talk about this and be critical of the whole situation without worry (so far) of being reported, investigated, hauled in for questioning, taken to jail (with or without trial) and "shot while trying to escape". Remember that the leading cause of death in the Soviet Union was a sudden 9mm brain hemorrhage.

Good point, MA-C.

There are lots of comments made about "government" taking away our (American) freedoms, violating the Constitution, and such. However, 99% percent of us wouldn't know political persecution if it bit us on the gluteus maximus. Do I like the current administration? Hell, no. Do I still feel I live in the greatest country on the planet? Damn right. If things are so bad here, how is it we have the highest immigration rate in the world? People from other parts of the world risk there lives to come to a country for the freedoms that we claim are being violated. Shame on us.

Respects,

Frank

 

[shesulsa]

If that were the case, the title would not be 'Homeland security opening private mail' now would it, since the fact that this has been going on since well before the advent of the department of homeland security would suggest that it really has nothing to do with it. No facts in the article point fingers at Bush OR the department of homeland security. The only reason to name the title such as it was, was to insinuate that it DID have something to do with Bush or 'the department of homeland security'.

Yeah, that or to get people to read the article ... or because these are now the identifiable faction which does this. Before what did we call it, the FBI? CIA? the mysterious 'government'? Now it has a distinct name and that's what we call it. It's the difference between calling that thing on your foot a crusty yellow thing and a callous.

 

[michaeledward]

Remember that the leading cause of death in the Soviet Union was a sudden 9mm brain hemorrhage.

I don't remember that.

Nor do I think it is an accurate statement. The Soviet Union was a pretty large institution. While I don't doubt there were instances of 9mm brain hemorrhages, it seems to me a bit hyperbolic to call it the 'leading cause of death'.

I am also not sure the Soviet Union had a Fourth Amendment which made warrantless searches a protected right.

Keep our eyes on the ball.

 

[jdinca]

The far right does hate the president. Why do you think that is? Because of the color of his shoes? No, it's exactly because of things like warrantless searches. This president believes that he is not subject to the law. He swore to uphold the Constitution, but he trashes it every chance he gets in order to achieve his aims. That's why he will continue warrantless searches and other breaches of privacy. He can easily get warrants from the FISA court, but he doesn't believe he has to answer to anybody, so he doesn't even make the attempt. He is contemptuous of the Constitution.

Sorry, I have to disagree. This started well before 9/11. It goes back to the 2000 election, and hasn't let up since. He won the electoral college (all recounts in Florida support this) but lost the popular vote. Those on the left started trashing him and still think he stole the election, even though we don't elect presidents by popular vote in this country. It's blatantly obvious that the ONLY thing he could do to please the liberals would be to step down. Then they could have a president more to their liking, Dick Cheney.

He has a broad view of executive powers. All presidents do and all presidents have tried to expand those powers. Bush is more tenacious in this regard. He's not contemptuos of the Constitution, that's your opinion. He's got a more aggressive view of what it says regarding presidential powers. His aims are to protect the citizens of this country. I agree, a truly sinister goal.

I don't know if it's a typo or not but yes, many on the far right don't like him. It's not because of his views on presidential powers though, it's because he's the most fiscally liberal president we've had in recent memory. He's yet to veto a spending bill. This is where I have my biggest gripe with the Republican party. They're now no different than the Democrats when it comes to spending. They just want to spend it in different places. The end result is the same, increased financial burdens for the citizens of this country.

 

[jdinca]

The only thing I disagree with in that statement Phoenix, is that its the President. Its not. (Well it is, but thats too specific of finger pointing) its the GOVERNMENT.

Thank you! The president is the lighning rod because, well, he's the president, like him or not. I don't trust the "government" much at all. The people behind the scenes are not elected officials, it's the career government people who make the government work (is that statement an oxymoron?) regardless of who's in charge.

 

[MA-Caver]

Good point, MA-C.

There are lots of comments made about "government" taking away our (American) freedoms, violating the Constitution, and such. However, 99% percent of us wouldn't know political persecution if it bit us on the gluteus maximus. Do I like the current administration? Hell, no. Do I still feel I live in the greatest country on the planet? Damn right. If things are so bad here, how is it we have the highest immigration rate in the world? People from other parts of the world risk there lives to come to a country for the freedoms that we claim are being violated. Shame on us.

Respects,

Frank

Yes we do hold the highest immigration in the world and for good reason is that we have the highest freedom anywhere else. Thus, why wouldn't anyone want to live here where they have a chance to fulfill their dreams and their father's dreams?
Still, little by little are these freedoms taken away. Recall, how freedoms were taken away by the Nazi party in 1930 Germany and pre/post WWII Russia... sudden and quickly, same with Communist China. There was lots of bloodshed and grief.
If current/past/future administrations in this country tried that with the present consitution there'd be another civil war (but for different reasons). This would eventually leave this country open to insergents and invasions... thus subtle and little by little they will take this away and that away and little by little we'll gripe and moan about it and eventually get used to it and our children grow into it thinking it's just part of life in these United States.
Make the comparisions to what we can and cannot do 50/75 years ago to what we can/cannot do today. Oh sure times change and just who is doing the changing??

I love this country too Frank and I will willingly die for it. But I'll be damned if I will willingly die for the present government.