I almost wish someone else would open some of my mail. All they'd see is junk such as coupons I don't need, assorted solicitations and bogus credit card offers, and casino perks I'll never use. They'll be wasting their time with my mail! LOL

But seriously, I think I'd have to know more about what exactly a scenario would be where opening mail might be necessary. I can't automatically condemn this without more info. Terrorists come up with radical new techniques every day, things a lot of us would never imagine in our wildest dreams.

Even if Bush's power play goes into practice, I sincerely doubt the Feds would ever be interested in mail for a boring, typical citizen like me, so I'm not worried about this.

Even though I can see the possible outrage over this and its conflict with the Constitution, I subscribe to the old-fashioned attitude of "If you're truly not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of."

I just don't see how this blatantly unconstitutional violation of privacy and abuse of power will stop terrorists. (He*l, you basically have to support the government's agenda or be labeled a terrorist thanks to political overcorrectness)

The thing that worries me, is that the President says his signing statement isn't changing anything, then why say it? It seems he wanted to throw in "exigent circumstances" just to let everyone know that he'll do what he wants, when he wants with zero regard for the "g**damn piece of paper" we call the Constitution. He has no respect for anyone's rights but his own. God forbid anyone question King George. Then it's an attack on America, as if his idea of this country were the only one that mattered.

It has reached the point where Augusto Pinochet would be better than President Bush. Pinochet was able to combat terrorists without going as far to destroy individual liberties as George Bush has gone.

Then again, maybe the same damn thing.

Time to switch to FedEx?

First, if they know enough to know it's an emergency, they know enough to get a warrant.

Secondly, if it's a big enough emergency, let somebody go ahead and commit a felony and preclude the contents from being used as evidence in court. If it's that important, risk jail for opening mail, and risk not having enough evidence to convict. There's no reason to try and legitimize the practice.

I'm increasingly unhappy with our president selection process.

Well, the privacy infringement is actually of concern here. No entity, including the gov't officials in particular, has any rights whatsoever to access any kind of individuals' private data, including, but not limited to, citizens' e-mails.

What's more, this kind of legislation does NOT even help in the "War on Terror", either (even putting aside the whole 'rationale' behind this "war") - quite the contrary. Why? Well, because only ordinary citizens, and in particular - those not having time/motivation/whatever to gain proficiency in computer "skills", like the encryption of e-mails, will get hurt.

The "terrorists" and even plain criminals, even assuming they could do anything as unintelligent as communicate via e-mail (is this seriously what this administration is using as an excuse?), obviously can (and probably already DO) use encrypting technology - instead of just using plain-text - making the whole legislation completely WORTHLESS with respect to the national security and law enforcement.

In fact, not only worthless, but also HURTING the national interest and the law enforcement. The taxpayers' money is spent to pay the technicians, cover the operating costs involved - the money could have otherwise been used elsewhere, including defense/law enforcement expenses (putting aside which/how large are actually needed). Therefore, this policy actually HURTS the national interest, by being prohibitively expensive and diverting the already gathered funds from more vital objectives and/or leading to higher taxes in the future.

So the attitude "If you're truly not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of." does really not apply here - it's a waste of taxpayers money, diverting the law enforcement resources (money, time, operatives) from jobs much more important to the national security (like making sure 9/11 won't happen again) - so you pretty much have MUCH to be afraid of!

Perhaps that's something worth reminding - that the interventionist measures like these actually do way more harm than good? This seems to be constantly missed by the Republicrats.

The solution would also be perhaps to educate the public about the ways to have the better level of privacy - further exposing the lack of rationale behind this kinds of legislation. Especially that it's quite easy, nowadays.
And by "education" I mean even putting one-sentence note with news like this, e.g. "to protect yourself from the snoops, learn about the PGP, you can go there-and-there for a friendly introduction", word of mouth, telling your friends/family ;-)

Eg. OpenPGP can be of help here - more info (& links) can be found e.g. on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP

There are open-source (& free) implementations of this standard, like GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG or GPG) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard - for Linux, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows. Installation is just a matter of a few clicks, so I guess it's not really complicated. For instance, the plugin - "Enigmail" - allows to integrate the GnuPG with Mozilla Thunderbird for Microsoft Windows.

So, in general - both underlining the actual danger to the national security and mentioning the ways ordinary citizens can protect themselves - perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea to mention these in this/future similar cases on LP blog/news?

"I'm increasingly unhappy with our president selection process."

You mean the one where the Bilderbergers or the Trilateralists or the Oil Tycoons or the Bonesmen or the Moral Majority get together and decide who the safe yin and yang will be for our "major two" choices for President?

I agree. It's putting a real damper on the American civilization.

I'll continue to vote for the third major choice, Libertarians, even if we field a clown and a monkey on our Presidential ticket. My pet rock, or perhaps my pet goat, could govern better than "shrub" ever could, or ever would.

You know, immigrants are actually one of George Bush's biggest supportes, because no matter how much liberty he takes away it's still a heck of a lot better then going back to their country so they dont realize how bad it is. Plus many immigrants are very religious and conservative. Why am I mentioning it? Because it is a sad day when America has to say at least we are still better then Nigeria. Very sad. One of the few things that the U.S. has that the rest of the world doesn;t is our ability to intergrate people all sorts of culture into our society while the so called liberal Europeans need to deal with riots because Musimes feel like another class of citizens. And our ability to spread our culture and liberal ideas through the free market and free trade. It is because of this that we are not yet doomed. I only hope that Mr.Bush uis telling the truth when he says these violations of liberty wwill only be used in an emergency, but if he isn't lying to us about what he would do he cannot imagine what other presidents would do.

Never forget this fact:

Violations of individual liberty are never temporary.

While all of you have been sleeping, the Neo-conservatives and Zionists have been very busy:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

Sweet dreams, everybody.

How'd you like to be a janitor at one of the nuclear development sites in Iran. Can you say hazard pay?

I wonder if Iran is rethinking Russia's offer to handle the nuclear power generation. You can't tell someone you want them "wiped off the map" and expect them to be OK with that.

"SO. BUSH IS NOW USING HIS INFAMOUS SIGNING STATEMENTS not merely to say he won’t enforce laws, but to make up new “laws” — in this case, to give his agents the power to open mail without a warrant. But only in “exigent circumstances,” of course. Hm. Do you s’pose Frat-Boy in Chief even knows what “exigent” means? Sure he does. The definition of “exigent” is “whenever the Decider feels like it.”

These signing statements are fascinating. Never learned about ‘em in civics class, did you? Never learned that the leader of a “democratic” country could just cancel laws or make new ones up: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool,” as Clintonista Paul Begala notoriously said. (Oh, and do you remember how much that remark upset those good “limited government” Republicans, back then?)

Anybody out there able to come up with any reasonable argument that this is not a form of dictatorship?"

Posted by Claire Wolfe at Wolfe’s Blog
http://www.clairewolfe.com/blog.html

"Because it is a sad day when America has to say at least we are still better then Nigeria. Very sad."

Not so fast - America's catching up with Nigeria quickly.

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com/2007/01/08/dubai-yas-419-scam/

QUOTE: "Violations of individual liberty are never temporary."

Just about dam right too! Even more so in our politically korrect globalist "more regulations=good" society.

When the Democrtas inevitably back down from President Bush's plan to increase troops will the LP be making a public statement on all the major networks that the party opposes the move to send more troops and that the party in fact has called for the withdrawl all along? Just curious if silence is the best option.

President Bush stated "it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States." Really? Hasn't history shown that those that are defending themselves have the advantage, that the people who know their own land, neighbors, and infrastructure usually win? People retain their will to fight when they are defending their home. Isn't that how we won the Revolution and War of 1812? Isn't that why Lee failed when he decided to attack the North? Isn't that why Napolean and Hitler failed when they took the show on the road to Russia? Isn't that why Vietnam is still communist?

If our stupid gun regulations haven't disarmed us would anyone dare come here to fight? I'm pretty sure my gun isn't afraid of their box cutters. But in Iraq, everyone has guns so ours are neutralized to some extent. The advanced technology we've developed does no good in a street war because our advanced technology lives in the sea and the sky. Does anyone in a position of power recognize this? Adding more targets only takes defenders away from our homeland which last I checked is right here. The incompetence is maddening.

eliminate the u.s. postal system and privatize all mail delivery. taxpayers would be released from the burden of costly, ineffiecient mail service and the privacy issue would go away.

The postal service makes a profit through postage so taxpayers aren't financing it. And, even if it were privatized, Bush doesn't care. He does what he wants. He defines his jurisdiction and creates laws on his own. Removal of our present crop of elected officials is the only way to affect change.

I believe that besides privatisation of the mail, etc., the libertarians should go even deeper to create a society that today we can only have a glimpse the same way someone in the 1900´s could have a glimpse of how society is today. The libertarian philosophy should be applied in whatever surround us. For example, why the the state should handle the traffic in the streets (e.g. the ways of the streets, taxis, buses, etc)? this would be better, faster and more efficiently be managed by firms the way traffic is managed in a private neighbourhood, traffic jams and similar problems would me solved or minimized in big cities bringing together a huge economic boost, since people could work and go to work more efficiently.
My country however is miles away from anything similar to this or even moving backwards. Althouhg I believe that the first world is turning slowly into more and more eceonomic freedom. For example in Japan the two main ruling parties are the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, or in the UK where a Labour Party (T. Blair) embrased a certain economic freedom briging, of course, growth. Just a humble opinion from an Argentinean.

sorry about posting my mail in the frist blog i saw

I don't know much about traffic congestion in big cities other than it goes more smoothly when people don't block the intersection because they are trying so desparately to make the light. It just causes traffic jams which slows them down, ironically, since they were being hasty.

As for suburbs and smaller cities, round-abouts as opposed to traffic lights are great. It just takes once or twice through it to get used to but they keep traffic flowing, even if at lesser speeds it still saves time and fuel because you don't have to stop and go all day. It reduces congestion, is safer bceause its a naturally controlled environment of traffic flow and speed (you can't go 60 mph through a round-about but you can through a stop light), and it takes no electricity to operate. It would reduce the cost of government because it is much cheaper to operate, basically just paving maintenance.

If anyone can explain to me how privatized streets would work, I'd be grateful. I always thought that was one place government was necessary to pay for contruction and maintenance. Obviously highways and bridges could be toll financed, but streets? It seems to me tolls would be inefficient for traffic flow, so what other community financing could be used that is not through taxation?

Hear a Libertarian Presidential candidate call for a Corps of Special Prosecutors to bring justice to criminals who violate the law by reading your mail. And note how internet radio lets us get our message out.

Tuesday, January 9
9 PM EST

Libertarian Party Presidential candidate George Phillies. Interviewed by Todd Barnett on Liberty Cap Talk Live on BlogTalkRadio.com.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertycaptalklive.

There will likely be a chance for audience questions.

All this talk of taxes and mail prying, etc. is fine, but aren't we ignoring the 10-ton Elephant in the room?

I think the LP ought to take a stronger antiwar stand, especially with Bush's impending escalation announcement.

Rather than complain and wait for National to do something, the LP Radical Caucus has prepared a press release for local affiliates to adapt and use as they see best - it is available here:

http://www.lpradicals.org/

The press release is for the use of any Libertarian Party affiliate or organization wanting a rapid and forceful response to Bush's call for escalation in Iraq. Please feel free to place your group's name and contact information on it and release it to your local media. If you would like to make changes, feel free to do so. No credit need (or should) be given - release this under your own group's name. The LP should be providing affiliates with platform-compliant, forceful statements on current news events. The LP should be taking a strong antiwar stand. The activists of the LP Radical Caucus offer this release to help LP affiliates make a strong Libertarian statement on current events.

You guys at the LP are just now hearing about this? Good lord, who is reading the papers and keeping up with current events? Did they get a little behind? I blogged this back on Dec 30th and you guys are just now covering it? Come on, we need to pay more attention to our liberties than this.

Hey I have ways to even save more money on defense bring "ALL" our military boys and girls home. By the way that does not just mean Iraq.

Well lets see World War 2 ended in 9/2/1945 yet we still have troops in Germany and Japan. Bring them home. Germany has admitted it keeps the bases there so there economy would not go in the toliet.

Next Korea that war ended in 1954 lets see bring our troops home. I do not care that North Korea would attack South Korea. I know some one who is stationed there that was shot in o yeah 2002. By the way we have more troops in South Korea then we do in Iraq. What is also funny is that it is so called unconsitutional to guard our own borders but we could guard Korea's LOL.

Bring our troops home from Yugoslavia which was suppose to happen in 2000 by the way we still have troops there and it is 2007.

Also bring our troops home from Great Britian I did not know we where still in the War of 1812 LOL.

Then if you would join in this call then I would think all your crying about Iraq would be more legit. Becuase I was a member of the Libertarian Party since 1994 and you guys said nothing when we bombed the crap out or Yugoslavia, which was a fledling democracy in a civil war. Right now I think you guys are using the war which is not a great thing as just a marketing tool. So you are just as bad if not worse then the Democrats who gave us a president that is more of a tryant then Bush ever will be FDR.

James, you are correct that all the troops should be brought home. Why would it be unconstitutional to have them at home defending our own borders? There are bases all over the US. We need to reposition them. Sorry Kansas, you don't need a base there in the middle of the country. How about California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas?

The appalling reasoning behind the invasion of the mail debacle is exigent circumstances, so I checked the offical police description of "exigent" and it listed 3 situations.
1. If a person is in imminent physical danger
2. If evidence is in imminent physical danger
3. If a suspect would have an opportunity to escape.

How the heck could any of these ever be applied to mail?

Yeah, Coach, the funny part is that only a bomb or anthrax or something like that would qualify (because mail isn't usually time sensitive) as exigent circumstances in which case NOT opening them would be the safest action.