1.07.2007

"quietly claimed sweeping new powers"

In case you missed it, the US government claims it now has the legal authority to open citizens' mail without a search warrant. And indeed, if you live in the United States, you easily might have missed this ominous news, because most major news outlets ignored it.
ABC, CBS, CNN largely ignored Bush's claim of power to search mail

Summary: While NBC has aired a segment on President Bush's "signing statement" on a postal reform bill that "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant," ABC, CBS, and CNN have largely ignored the story, and ABC reported that Bush "acquired new powers" and suggested that they were "included" the bill.

On January 4, the New York Daily News reported that on December 20, President Bush attached a "signing statement" to a postal reform bill that "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant." According to the Daily News: "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it." ABC, CBS, and CNN have largely ignored the story, however, and ABC's Good Morning America reported that Bush "acquired new powers" and suggested that they were "included" the bill.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Bush's unprecedented use of "signing statements" -- through which Bush, according to Boston Globe staff writer Charlie Savage, has "quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office" -- has been largely ignored by the media. (More here.)
I know many wmtc readers feel I am too easy on average Americans, not crediting them with enough responsibility for the sorry state their country is in, blaming too much of their ignorance on the media. After many discussions, I've seen that I was being too forgiving, and I've acquired a more balanced view.

However, if major media outlets don't report accurately - or at all - on important changes such as this, I don't think the average person, who doesn't have the luxury (or perhaps the desire) to sit in front of the computer trolling for news, could be properly informed. They ought to be able to turn on their TV sets and learn what's going on.

If this earlier post was categorized under creeping theocracy, file this one under creeping fascism.

10 comments:

M@ said...

Let me tell you a little anecdote to support this. I have the satellite radio in my car because I drive so much for work, and one of the sets of channels I have set mainly to news and sports stations. Among those stations is Fox News -- set during the midterms because I wanted to compare their version of events to CNNs.

So by mistake, thinking I had hit the BBC World Service button, I got Neil Cavuto on Friday. I don't really know Cavuto as I'm not exactly a regular Fox watcher or listener. I heard maybe a half-minute before I had a hand free to change the station again.

Here's basically what I heard, a teaser for the next segment:

"You might have heard lately that President Bush has made a law that he's now allowed to open Americans' mail without a warrant. We'll be back after this to tell you why this just isn't so."

I kind of wanted to hear more because in that car-accident way, it was fascinating. But it's just too hard to put up with.

Anyhow, this post made me think of the incident.

James said...

In case you missed it, the US government claims it now has the legal authority to open citizens' mail without a search warrant.

That's not quite accurate. The US government passed a law saying they weren't allowed to open mail without a warrant. Bush claimed he could.

Bush's signing statement basically said, "I sign this bill into law, so it's illegal to open mail without a warrant, except in special circumstances, which are whatever I say they are."

These signing statements are probably the single most undemocratic aspect of the current administration. How many has he used to say, "This is the law, except when I don't want to obey it"? I think it's over 750 now.

Previous presidents used vetos when they met a law they didn't like -- but vetos can be overridden. Bush uses signing statements because they can't be overridden, as there's no mechanism for addressing them.

L-girl said...

In case you missed it, the US government claims it now has the legal authority to open citizens' mail without a search warrant.

That's not quite accurate. The US government passed a law saying they weren't allowed to open mail without a warrant. Bush claimed he could.


That, my friend, is what I call a distinction without a difference.

L-girl said...

These signing statements are probably the single most undemocratic aspect of the current administration.

Which is really saying something, considering how they got "elected"!

How many has he used to say, "This is the law, except when I don't want to obey it"? I think it's over 750 now.

Yes, that 750 number is mentioned in the paragraphs I quoted above.

L-girl said...

M@, thanks for that. It's always so instructive to listen to or watch Fox. Hard on the digestion, though. And since you're driving, it might be dangerous. Road rage and all.

If I drove a lot, I would definitely get satellite radio - the one with all the baseball games. :)

A. Thomas said...

I came across your blog today for the first time. I just have one question. If you think that Canada is so great, and that the United States sucks, why do you dwell on what is happening in the U.S. and criticize our Government and current President? If you truly think that Canada is better, live there--that's your freedom--I respect that. But don't continue to criticize our country. You live in Canada--criticize Canadian policies not the United States’ policies.

L-girl said...

why do you dwell on what is happening in the U.S. and criticize our Government and current President?

I blog about the US because its policies affect the entire world, and because I care about all people (including Americans), not just people who live in the same country as me.

But don't continue to criticize our country. You live in Canada--criticize Canadian policies not the United States’ policies.

I can blog about whatever and whomever I want, just as you can. You can criticize Canadian policies or the policies of any other country on earth. That's your right, and my right, too.

Anything any of us finds unjust or wrong, anywhere in the world, or anything we appreciate and want to announce, or any thought or idea that comes into our heads, is fair game for our blogs.

Don't you lovers of freedom know that?

Thanks for stopping by. I trust I have answered your one question.

James said...

That, my friend, is what I call a distinction without a difference.

I think it's an important distinction, and difference. Elected Congress did the Right Thing. A single (improperly elected) individual with delusions of dictatorial power has attempted to subvert it.

Now, what's needed at this point is some control on presidential signing statements. It would be nice if the Dems used their new-found power to deal with that...

redsock said...

It would be nice if the Dems used their new-found power to deal with that...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

(Whew!)

But don't continue to criticize our country. You live in Canada--criticize Canadian policies not the United States' policies.

What a crock of shit. First he orders you to stop writing what you like on your own blog. Yay for freedom of expression!

Then he claims that Canadians can criticize only Canadian policies. Because as we all know, Americans are content to critcize only American policies. Right? (Except that everything in the US is 101% great -- as it was under both under Clinton and Bush -- so there are simply no bad policies to critize.)

Does anyone on the planet (besides our clueless visitor) actually believe that Americans never pass judgment on anything that happens outside the 50 states?

That makes me laugh almost as much as thinking of the Dems with even a semblance of a spine.

M@ said...

You're talking about invading Iraq now, aren't you? You know that that's totally different, because Saddam HATED OUR FREEDOM.

Speaking of which, freedom fries, anyone?