exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Especially your playboy subscription. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I wondered why it was so sticky.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shankarsingam
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 1139
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I mailed some seeds back from Amsterdam, and I ll be damned those fuckerz never made it to my mail box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exton
Forum Elder
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Haha...what sorts of seeds were these? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Just your regular ugly people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3289
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Of course they can read your mail
a post office is a financial institution
under that anything can be searched and seized |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Now thats not true, it is a federal offence to read mail, thats why they are sealed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3289
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Lester wrote: | | Now thats not true, it is a federal offence to read mail, thats why they are sealed. |
Bush and congress redefined financial institution if you dont believe me they changed it when saddam was captured |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lester
Forum Elder
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 4650
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Turk wrote: | | Lester wrote: | | Now thats not true, it is a federal offence to read mail, thats why they are sealed. |
Bush and congress redefined financial institution if you dont believe me they changed it when saddam was captured |
Yes but you said "of course they can", they couldn't before this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Re: Government now can open our mail |
|
|
|
Forget whether such searches ought to be performed for a second and consider what Bush actually wrote; that the government will continue to perform "...physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
If the existence of the legal authority to perform such searches is unreasonable and does too much damage to personal liberty, that damage was not done by this signing statement; it was done by the law that allowed such searches in the first place. This signing statement merely clarifies that the legal authority to perform such searches existed prior to this legislation, and continues to exist despite any language in this new law which might be construed by some to suggest otherwise. That seems to me to be a point worth clarifying.
If the existence of the legal authority to perform warrantless searches is something with which Charles Schumer disagrees, he should consider drafting legislation to specifically remove that authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1456
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| The legal authority to perform warrantless searches doesn't exist. There's no need to draft any legislation towards that point because of that. It's a matter of the judiciary to strike it down as unconstitutional. It is interesting how some people will try and twist misdeeds (illegal) by Bush into a problem the Democrats have just been too lazy to fix and thus, it's their fault. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3289
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Wrong the democrats are allied with the bush admin in these illegal searches and seizures and warrantless wiretapping |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1456
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Hardly. Two words: Chris Dodd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrespassersW
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 988
Location: North Carolina, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Toxic wrote: | | The legal authority to perform warrantless searches doesn't exist. There's no need to draft any legislation towards that point because of that. It's a matter of the judiciary to strike it down as unconstitutional. It is interesting how some people will try and twist misdeeds (illegal) by Bush into a problem the Democrats have just been too lazy to fix and thus, it's their fault. |
It's kind of funny that you think this is about Bush.
| Quote: | On July 14, 1994 President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General and later 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that “The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes…and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.” This “inherent authority” was used to search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames without a warrant. "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
York, Byron. "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches - Does anyone remember that?", National Review Online, December 20, 2005.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....200946.asp
|
So, there is at least a legal argument as to whether the executive has this authority, which you seem to want to blithely deny. Frankly, it seems as though you aren't even aware of the history of this issue, seeming to believe it is something unique to the current administration. As for that question, I have no dog in that particular fight; your notion that my position here is a pro-Bush one is a function of your own bias, not mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Toxic
Forum Elder
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1456
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| You're right. It has nothing to do with Bush. I'm sorry that I would spend my efforts attacking the current head of the executive branch instead of attacking past heads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
