You've got mail! (*but it's been opened by the Department of Homeland Security)
You know all about the domestic spying scandal, I presume, but did you know that the government may also be opening your private mail?
THESE ARE YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!
**********
And, while we're at it, here's more on spygate from The Washington Post: "A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments." Make sure to read the whole article.
DON'T TAKE THEM FOR GRANTED!
THESE ARE YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!
**********
And, while we're at it, here's more on spygate from The Washington Post: "A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments." Make sure to read the whole article.
DON'T TAKE THEM FOR GRANTED!
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
4:17 PM
4 Comments:
I think that the question is slightly more challenging than accepting it as a breach of civil liberties. I think it begs the question -- how does one still allow for maxium liberty while protecting the population from realistic threats and potential dangers. Should a government protect its citizenry from threats to life, liberty, and the pursuit of making money? Or should it only be reactionary and let the punishment be the deterrent (I hardly think that you believe that is so, Mr. Stickings)? What avenues should the government be able to take? What limits should exist? Where does protection end and oppression begin? I don't think this question is as simple as you imply and in fact is rather grey and murkey. Anyone else have a more concrete thought?
By
Anonymous, at 2:26 PM
But as was mentioned in the article, Customs has always had the right to open international mail. Given that, I don't know what conspirator in their right mind would send sensitive information through the post, nor what on Earth DHS was doing opening this particular personal letter. But sorry, international correspondence has not and never has had any rights to privacy attached to it, from either the US end or any other country's.
I don't suppose the Phillipine professor included something in the letter that was the same shape and size as a lump of hash? :)
By
Anonymous, at 6:31 AM
Milhouse to Bart: "Sure we have order, but at what price?"
By
Anonymous, at 10:58 PM
It is perhaps not a Fourth Amendment issue, but rather an issue of statute law which prohibits the reading of personal correspondence even when packages (and letters, though there may be some question about smuggling here) contain it. But anyone who believes the current dictatorship's agents are not doing this is guilty of an extreme naivete. Its secret and political police operate as do the police in all dictatorships, to harass and oppress those on its enemies lists, dissidents, and to suppress political opinion and activity with which the dictatorship disagrees. I have seen an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence suggesting if not proving that the Customs Service is a full participant in this Constitutionally-questionable, to say the least, practice.
By
Anonymous, at 1:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home