The government can’t open somebody’s mail without a warrant. Yet a recent signing statement by President Bush gave notice that his administration would construe that provision “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances.”
White House spokesman Tony Snow downplayed the signing statement. “This is not a change in law, this is not new, it is not . . . a sweeping new power by the president," he said. But some civil liberties and law experts said the statement’s language is unduly vague and appears to go beyond long-recognized limits, the Washington Post reported.
It sure sounds like the Bush administration thinks the government can open somebody’s mail without a warrant — and like a good issue for the new Congress to explore.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Phantom on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Phantom on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
74 Comments
Good grief! I wouldn’t even open my hubby’s mail or allow him to open mine without permission when I was married. But the president thinks he has the right?
No way. Absolutely no way.
I agree with some infringement on civil liberty to aid in stopping terrorism. I fully expect another attack on US soil. These guys are getting smarter. But where do you draw the line?
Bully for the Dems in the first 100hrs for enacting more of the 9/11 legislation. Tighter security on containers is a GREAT start. We need to seal our southern border though… ASAP
All hail, King George has issued a decree where the almighty and just King may open anyone’s mail at his discretion. Never mind the freedom hating defeatocrats who believe that the Constitution gives us a right to privacy which prohibits the government from opening mail without a warrant. Nope, there is no “right to privacy” in the Constitution therefore King George is perfectly justified. Did the Republicans have a problem with Bush when he said he can wiretap or search your house without a warrant? Nope, so don’t get in a big hissyfit about getting to read your mail without a warrant.
Lord Tiahrt and Duke Brownback will certainly see that Kansas will obey the King’s dictates. Anyone who disagrees with the King whose rights are ordained by the Almighty God Cheney will face the gallows.
Something stinks.If this was the story Ms Holman wished it was, where is the outrage from the Dems? Why wasn’t this on the front page of the Eagle?I’ll tell you why. There is more to the story and we aren’t getting it from this agenda driven paper.Another signing statement that goes nowhere. Is the a single instance of “snooping” not associated with the war on terror?And, check out the Headline. Snooping on snailmail, too?Too?We are at war with people who want to kill all of us, for Christ’s sake.
Fleetwood, that’s why a court has been set up that will approve a warrant for these searches. The warrant can be approved after the mail has already been opened. King George just thinks laws don’t apply to him. The court is even conveniently located in the Capitol, and he has up to 72 hours after opening your mail to get the warrant approved. Now how hard is that?
What is it about neo-cons that make them so desperate to remove our civil liberties and make America more like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union?
doug, it’s people like you and the rest of you people who will allow us to get hit again.Where is Pelosi on this? Have you heard a peep from her?
Now you all have noticed that all my time is occupied by hating. I’m a petty little grudge holding sore loser kid. My significant other, Bruce, always tells me that hate will ruin me, but I don’t listen to my lover. Yup! That’s me in a nutshell, a hating little fag!
“doug, it’s people like you and the rest of you people who will allow us to get hit again.”
That is really rubbish, Fleet. Truly.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” B. Franklin 1759
Let’s try to remember that we are Americans because we are free. Giving up our freedoms to the government diminishes all of us.
BTW – The Dems are kind of cranky on this subject:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html
Bush slipped in by in a signing statement 12/20/2006, just before the Holidays.
“We are at war with people who want to kill all of us, for Christ’s sake” – fleetenema
I can tell you’re really intelligent.
Can I introduce you to the Constitution of the United States?
You just might like it.
I suggest you read this poem by Martin Niemöller:When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent;I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,I remained silent;I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,there was no one left to speak out
So Fleety, in order to make ourselves safe we have to get rid of the Constitution and all of our civil liberties. We certainly can’t have the right to vote because we may vote a terrorist into office. We can’t have freedom of the press because a terrorist might get some information. We can’t have freedom of speech because someone might criticize the government’s fictional war on terror. We can’t have freedom of religion because someone might be a Muslim. We can’t require the government to get a warrant to search our residence and property because a terrorist might be hiding a bomb.
In Fleetys world all Americans are potential terrorists and they haven’t earned the right to have any freedoms. Fleetwood and his police state are what we have to look forward to. If Fleetwood had his way the terrorists won with just one attack, because our nation would be torn apart, our Constitution destroyed and a nation would be enslaved. Who is that supposed to make us safe from?
If the terrorists come for fleetwood, I shall hold the door wide open! They can put him out of our misery.
Damn woody,it’s people like you that follow dictators into the fire.
The way I understand it, it’s opening mail under emergency circumstances. That has always existed according to Postal Web Site.
Nothing new, but maybe enhanced with today terrorism in mind, for things like anthrax dust or letter bombs, etc.
I think there are just too many whiney people that get excited over nothing.
I believe we have a Bingo!Nothing has changed. That’s why no one is outraged except the far left pinkos.
I gotta say, this pretend concern about losing all our rights, etc… is political or just plain silly alarmist. Who has lost any rights?
And that poem is just a non-starter since I don’t recall a class of people being locked up.
When the government wanted information on the terrorists, I spoke up and made it tougher to fight terrorism.
When the nuke went off in Chicago, I blamed the government for not doing enough to protect us.
And don’t pretend you wouldn’t.
Well, actually a lot has changed Fleet and JM, or Bush would not have had his legal staff compose a signing statement.
They have always had the right to open a package or letter IF there was suspicion that it contained a harmful substance. Opening a letter to read the contents pre-Bush required a warrant, signed by a Judge, after probable cause was determined.
Bush is now saying that he doesn’t need a warrant to read your mail, listen in on your calls or even to search your home or property.
That is the change that Bush has brought on – no warrants.
Remember, it was only 35 years ago that we had a president with an enemies list and he agressively went after those enemies with the FBI and IRS, among other agencies.
He even went after a musician who’s crime was… writing a song, requestig that we “Give Peace A Chance.”
Why should we trust George W Bush more than Richard M Nixon?
Would each of you who think it’s fine and dandy for Bush to decide when and whose mail needs to be opened ask yourself this question, please, “Would I want ______ (insert name of person you would object to most) to open my mail?” And then really stop and think about all the “Executive Powers” this president has given himself and each person who will follow in that office.
He can listen in on your phone calls without a warrant.
He can read your email without a warrant.
He can declare you are an enemy combatant, lock you away forever without ever telling you what you did or allowing you to see or contact anyone (loved ones, lawyer…) and you get no rights to a trial of any kind.
So how would it feel to give those same “rights and privileges” to the person whose name you put in the blank?
Re outlander: Of course you don’t recall a class of people being locked up (yet). That is a reference to Hitlers Germany which you probably know nothing about.
What makes anyone think the government wouldn’t plant something in your mail to set you up? Just curious.
The term used in the signing statement was “exigent circumstances”. Not to belabor this, but “exigent” does not necessarily equal “emergency”.
I, too, am old enough to remember the actions of the Nixon Administration under the mantle of “national security”; that’s why I view any action based thereon with a jaundiced eye.
What I am trying to reconcile is that conservatives are ones here calling for a nanny-government wherein we all give up rights to be protected.
Freedoms cannot exist in a risk-free nanny-state. I thought this position was supposed to your winger rallying cry.
It is difficult to conceive that the Bush administration is thinking that the sheeple will keep falling for the “national security” ruse.
Car parked on a hill, geared in neutral with the emergency brake off. Nothing has happened. A police officer reaches in the car puts on the emergency brake and activates the emergency brake. The police officer acted prudently in exigent circumstances.
Or should the police officer should have waited until the car was rolling downhill and there was a real emergency?
“He can listen in on your phone calls without a warrant.
He can read your email without a warrant.
He can declare you are an enemy combatant,…”He CAN listen in, if you are getting calls from terrorists from overseas.He CAN read your mail, if it has suspected ties to terrorists.He CAN declare you an enemy combatant, if you are captured fighting with the enemy.So What?Part of the problem with you people is you don’t understand how little our rights are being diminished. You try to make it much more than it really is.If it was as you try to say, then where is Pelosi? Why is she smiling her Botox smile with the gavel in her hand, instead of calling for the impeachment of someone who is doing what you say is happening?Because it’s not happening, that’s why.
“The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”
That’s the full text of the statement. As VT will likely tell you, there is NO change in law there. Mail can be opened now, under exigent circumstances.
Exigent circumstances is a legal term of art defining emergency or other circumstances where the evidence may be lost if search is not conducted – the same justification officers may use to search your car without a warrant. Such a search still requires probable cause or its functional equivalent.
Note the phrase “to the maximum extent permissible.” As noted, under some circumstances, this is permissible now. Tempest in a teapot, and more misinformation.
And lindainks55, after having read the statute to which you refer many times, I can tell you that in my opinion the said statute specifically does NOT say that”He can declare you are an enemy combatant, lock you away forever without ever telling you what you did or allowing you to see or contact anyone (loved ones, lawyer…) and you get no rights to a trial of any kind.”
In fact, it says no such thing. We’ve had this discussion before, though, and I gotta tell ya in fairness, VT and I disagree on this one, at least on the edges.
“Those who would give up freedom for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”
Benjamin Franklin
Well, Fleet, you don’t know that it is not happening. You may not personally heard of it happening, but it certainly is not something the Bush administration covers in their daily press briefings.
The point is, all we have to go on is TRUST for the Federal Government.
If Bush chooses, he CAN violate nearly any of your most basic rights.
And that does not make me feel good. It has nothing to do with Bush being a Republican. I would not want to see a Clinton or Obama with that capability either.
I do not FEAR my government, but I certainly never be willing to give them my basic freedoms.
Hey Slick,
Under what circumstances did Ben Franklin say that?
I bet the British were still in the colonies and he was talking about the people siding with the British because of concerns for their security.
What ya think……Slick?
Here’s a little fun fact to know and tell-During the Revolutionary War, there were more “Americans” fighting for the British than for the “Americans”.
Let’s flip the equation for the right-wingers – would you be comfortable giving the powers that Bush II claims for himself to Bill Clinton?
Would you mind him reading your mail, listening in on your phone calls, getting copies of your phone records, searching your house, deciding if you are an enemy combatant?
Think about that for a minute….
JM the terrorists are not after you.
If they get you the only recation would be applause.
WSClark,
Despite the view of leftists, I had very little concerns or problems with Bill Clinton. Thought the impeachment thing was wrong. If Clinton sought the power to do so, I would have approved of it as would many others.
And your hypothetical statement about being a terrorist, having your mail opened, phone records etc. is an argument without legs as 99.999999 percent of the people are not terrorists and nothing to fear.
If I was a terrorist, should I be concerned? yep.
Does searching through FBI Files count?
JM – Since you are much more reasonable than Fleet – All Bush has to do is get a warrant. The law even allows him to get the warrant for electronic wire tap AFTER the fact. What those of us on the left would like is to see him process his invasions of privacy WITH a warrant.
Fleet – answer the question for once.
Yep, GMC, I agree that facially the signing statement in and itself really doesn’t change existing law; and, any disagreement you and I have about the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is definitely “at the edges”.
The concern I have, with the self-disclosed biases which accompany the same, with the signing statement is not so much with its content, but how “exigent circumstances” may be construed by those in charge. Hopefully, a tempest in a teapot; I’ll reserve final judgment on that.
Perhaps, on further navel contemplation, my concern is the need for the signing statement at all, as I understood the act signed into law didn’t change the basic underlying law at all in this regard.
JM the terrorists are not after you.If they get you the only recation would be applause. Posted by: * | January 05, 2007 at 03:25 PM
They were after me at one time in Germany. They were called the Baader Meinhof Gang and they had killed several GI’s with bombs.
Some of you have never sat in a foreign country and had every box, tube, suitcase, article of clothing and orifice searched for reasons unknown to you. I have and it isn’t pleasant.
They had no warrants or any particular justification other than I was an American. They saw the green passport (military passport) and did their third world country thing.
And stand up like a man, post a real name.
ws-If what you say is true, then our Hero Pelosi would let us know. That is her job.So, either you are over-reacting or she isn’t doing her job. Which is it?
Re: stilljmI don’t know, I wasn’t there and I don’t think you were either. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Fleet, do you have an English translation for your post? Maybe you can get someone to help you with it.
Any Nancy Pelosi has had the “job” for about twnety-four hours.
Then if what you say is true, why hasn’t she done anything about it before.Either you are over-reacting or she doesn’t believe as you do. Which is it?
Hey, Slick, I am going to stick up for JM here.
If he was deployed to West Germany in the early to mid-seventies, he would or could have been a target of the Baader Meinhof Gang. They did attack American bases and American soldiers.
The group JM is referring to was active in Europe for years, well into the ’90’s. They even tried to assasinate Alexander Haig.
hehe, Fleet,Ol’ Drug Addict isn’t going to answer that question.
We both know that.
Drug addict?
VT
I’m not sure I understand the purpose either, given the no net change.
“Then if what you say is true, why hasn’t she done anything about it before.”
If what I say if true? Where have you been, Fleet, living in a cave?
The Bush assault on civil liberties has been covered over and over and over again. The links are so numerous as to be ridiculous. The “the Google.”
As for why hasn’t Pelosi done anything? The Democrats just took power YESTERDAY. Until yesterday, they did NOT have the power to conduct an investigation. They will – they have promised – and you will whine when they do it.
My Fleet, you are unusually dense today.
Sorry Nutz, I did answer the question.
BTW – I am still waiting for you and Fleet to answer the question about impeachment.
Got answers?
BTW II – You’re slipping Nutz, you usually start the stalking a little quicker than this.
“We are at war with people who want to kill all of us, for Christ’s sake.”
A hell of a lot of people want to kill us. In fact, there are a few I would consider killing if I could, and I could get away with it.
They can’t kill us, or at least, very many of us. We’ve removed for the most part the weapon they’ve used for decades, the hijacked airline.
Our greatest danger is Mother Nature, followed by nations which possess nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
You’ve got as much chance of being killed in the U.S. by an Islamic terrorist as you do of being killed in a fall from a ladder.
Why don’t we launch a war against ladder companies?
I Goooogled “wild eyed everything is ruined bush is spying on everybody” and nothing came up.
What question about impeachment?
Slick,
Evidently that statement has been often misquoted from the original and attributed to Ben Franklin in error. From a historian who researches that era of the US:
In a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, however, Mr. Franklin stated that he published this book and denied that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served.
“The phrase itself was first used in a letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book.”
Note: The Governor of Pennsylvania during that time would have been a loyal British Subject.
“What question about impeachment?”
You claimed that it was necessary to impeach Clinton, but you refuse to answer why it was not appropriate to impeach Reagan and Bush I for Iran – Contra.
You said that you were living in the “now” whatever that means, given that Clinton’s impeachment was eight years ago.
We Should have impeached Reagan and Bush I, and we Would have if we had been thinking and we Could have. But we didn’t. Oh well. Maybe next time.
Fleet, did you pick up your debating skills by watching reruns of All In The Family?
Archie’s funny.
Slick,
You were close on the Niemoeller quote. Here it is, in full:
“First they came for the communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”-Martin Niemoellerhttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Niemoller_quote.html
Do ya think Dubya will pay my bills for me after he’s opened them? Now THAT would be NICE.
Seriously, I am not afraid to have my phone conversations “bugged,” my email “read,” or my mail opened. I have nothing to hide. I have the right to diss the Prez and anyone else, if I feel like it. What I fear is the slow erosion of some of the reasons why I have pride in and love for my country. Freedoms.
Then I started thinking. Just how do they GET this mail he’s opening? If I mail a letter to, say, Denver, it goes through my local/neighborhood post office, then to the General Mail Facility near the airport, then is shipped (trucked or airlifted) to the Denver GMF, to be distributed to the smaller neighborhood branch PO, then to the person I addressed it to. Just when will GW be reading it? It would be up to PO officials and workers to determine if they believed the missive was written by a terrorist, and since PO officials can’t open mail… Well, only the address or return address (if there was one) or the address/name being sent to would raise a red flag. Actually, if the RA was typed, it would be caught by a sorting machine.
Another question… Can Dubya READ?
Yes. ‘Tis the one, the only, the original RD…going back to normal.
Okay, now I’m really feeling sorry for GW. Isn’t he getting any mail of his own? Maybe we should start sending him some…
None of you deserve liberties, not a one of you who sit here and defend this nonsense. You are Unamerican as anyone I have ever seen. You sit here and complain about us “leftist socialist” when we want to provide healthcare to all Americans, but you willingly burn the Constitution that protects us all. Fascists, that’s all you are, and you can complain about me using that word all you want, but it’s the damn truth. You truly sicken me.
Only the Postal Inspection Service can open First Class Mail (a proper noun) without a warrant. Exigent circumstances are caused by the existence of some kind of:
Suspicious appearance/markings/addressing or some kind of indicator that the mailpiece ITSELF may be a threat to life, health, or safety.
Trafficking in drugs via US mail. Or the precursors for manufacture.
All other reasons require a FEDERAL SEARCH WARRANT.
Exigent conditions are not “because we think this person may have SAID something.” We worry about ricin, anthrax, and explosives. We do not worry about the communication of thought.
Bush is so full of crap his eyes are brown, and there is no reason why he needs this power, as the protection of the populace via the Postal Inspectors has gone on for years without the POTUS sticking his ignorant nose where it doesn’t belong. IMPEACH him NOW before he declares himself permanent dictator.
You meant to say Political Mom,
“None of you have my biased leftist views and are not entitled to your opinions or interpretations. I am the only American here and deserve to say my remarks of paranoia.”
Fleettwood the use of signing statements by President Bush to circumvent the Laws and the Constitution is not new. Back in 2002 then Presidential legal council A. Gonzales wrote a legal opinion that stated that Bush was in his Constitution rights as a war time President to use signing statements to void and ignore any legislation the Congress would pass. Or to change the meaning of passed legislation to suit his own goals.
These signing statements were not kept secret but were basically over looked as they were not thought to be of any real important. Just a part of the ceremony attached to the President signing new legislation.There were discovered Bush’s use of them after the Mc Cain anti torture legislation was passed and Bush used a signing statement to null and void it on how it effected the office of the President. In that signing statement Bush excluded himself, his administration or anyone that were following orders from being held accountable for torturing prisoners of war, illegal combatants or any suspects during the war on terrorism.
The administration opinion is that these signing statements are not only legal but binding. Giving the President absolute power and control over the judicial, and legislative branches of the government.And that he does not have to answer to either branch.
Unfortunately, George W Bush is a delusional nutjob that is truly dangerous to the United States and the world.
We were told that the Baker-Hamilton Report would be “the answer.” Now we are talking about surge and accelerate. Meanwhile, the tab is running up at over $1.4 billion per week, borrow from the Chinese.
All of this was foretold – no al Qaeda connection, no WMD, no threat to the US, civil war, regional war, endless war, maxed out military, etc.
As a country, we are in very deep shit and now Bush is trying to blame the Democrats for not having the answers.
Even if you are a hardcore right-wing cheerleader, you have to admit that this War on Iraq has been a huge mistake and we as a country will be paying for this mistake for years to come.
Meanwhile, the terrorists grow in numbers and strength.
Thanks, George.
You’re darn right JM apparently those on my side are the only true Americans on this topic. To me, this is civil war worthy. I will not allow you to take away my constitutional rights. I will not let you destroy America.
Postal,
Thanks for clarifying who does what in the postal system.
And didn’t I see that the signing statement included the someday freedom of privatizing the mail?
It’s sad isn’t it. Postal and I have had to take oaths to uphold the Constitution for our jobs. If we violate that oath then we get fired. Bush takes the same oath but if he violates it then he’s free to break other laws. All I ask is Bush to be held to the same standards as I have to be held to.
Well, RD, while we’re destroying the constitution of the United States, we might as well ‘privatize’ an entity that is actually mentioned in the BODY of the constitution as opposed to the Amendments. The Postal Service, in no certain iteration, with few details, is required to be established by the Executive branch of the Federal Government of the United States.
The trouble with privatization is this: Once you deregulate the post office, you jeopardize the universal service at uniform rates provision. To wit, they would more than likely state that it was economically infeasible to take a letter to Alaska for the same price as across the street in Bangor, Maine. Which would lead to three potential scenarios:
Universal service at non-uniform rates (similar to the package rates where, with the exception of Priority and flat-rate Express, there are different charges for distance but not for type or location of delivery vis a vis residential and business.)
Non-Universal service at uniform rates. Basically, either create a “centralized unit” where all the people from, say, half a county have to drive to pick up their mail OR they can have the option of off-day delivery (once every other day) or something similar. Sort of the reverse concept of “You live too close to the post office so you have to have a PO Box.” It would be “You live too far away and we’re not bringing it to you so you have to come get it.”
Option three is even more sinister. Try uniform service at INFLATED uniform rates. i.e. Because this private corporation can’t figure out how to use logistics well, we now charge $1.50 per letter because we have to recoup the costs to AK, HI, etc. and rural areas.
To anyone who thinks privatizing the post office is an efficient use of resources, and that the Postal Service is a ripoff, I propose a deal for you. I will give you two letters, one to the Postmaster of Nome, Alaska, and one to the postmaster of Tampa, Florida. And I’ll give you 78 cents for your cost to deliver both of them. You have three days to get the letter to Florida, and 5-7 days to get the letter to Alaska. Any takers?
The USPS is doing fine, although it is not profitable. Which is fine, because the USPS is not reaping tax dollars (hasn’t since the seventies) and it is a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION that markets simply for its own sustainability.
Excellent explanation, postal. I’m not nor have I ever been a proponent of privatizing the PO. My mother was a letter carrier back in the 70’s, and I’ve also been a postal employee. I understand the repurcussions of privatization, but I have a feeling many on here don’t. You told it like it would be.
God imagine the cutbacks in labor too, crappy pay, turnover- I’ve always been pretty happy with mail service but I know a lot of people complain, but I don’t think they should be complaining. I think the postal service does a great job.
It does not bother me to rarely get a letter that does not belong to me, I simply stick it back in the box.
Sorry, this topic sticks in my craw like a size 11 shoe. My big issue is that my JOB is to preserve the SANCTITY of the MAIL. I take great pride in delivering. I respect the privacy of my customers, and I don’t even pay attention to the writing on postcards, since they too are technically protected although “plain sight.” All I need is a name, address, and I’m good. Opening a person’s mail should be a last resort… it is one of the few sacred items left in this world. Maybe we should all start sending our mail Registered Post, considering the protections on it vs. what Bush thinks. Although, the cost would be prohibitive and there’d be a whole lot of paperwork and signing.
There are a few bad apples at the USPS, and we do our best to make sure that they don’t affect the greater cause. However, 99% of the people there are dedicated to the proposition that mail should be delivered:
UnopenedIntactUndamagedOn Time.
And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let some asshat go rifling through it.
Does anyone have any idea just how much mail goes through the system on a daily basis?
A few years ago, I worked at the encoding center. For those who don’t know, that’s where “mail” ends up that can’t be read (addresses). It isn’t real mail, where you hold the envelope in your hand, although it’s considered “live.” Each piece of mail is seen on a computer screen, and the encoder’s job is to look at the screen and determine either the zip code and/or number and street, then type it into the system. 2,000 characters (letters/numbers) per hour is considered slow to average input.
Off the top of my head, Wichita’s encoding center includes KS, MO, and IL. I seem to remember some more northern states, too. WI and MI maybe? It’s been too long.
Each month, our groups/teams were gathered and given the stats from the month before. The number of pieces of mail processed was usually in the millions…for one month. And that’s only for a portion of the U.S.
Is it any wonder an odd piece of mail gets slowed down or even sometimes lost? And don’t even talk about Christmas time. Except for the few glitches that occur when getting that mail to the center (computer problems), it all runs pretty smoothly. Imagine what it would be like if 200 or 300 companies were doing it their own way and add that to Postal’s delivery points.
What I don’t get about this whole topic is that now GWB wants to snoop into our mail for our Homeland Security? That makes as much sense as strip searching all the grandmas at the airports.
If Homeland Security is so important (and don’t get me wrong, I believe we should be vigilant in our homeland security), then why are our borders still wide open? Why are all cargo not inspected at the ports?
But these logical security steps are not taken – it is always something like mail and grandmas being searched. And we are supposed to feel safer? Hogwash.
Look, all you who say “we were hit for Christ sake, it will be people like YOU who are responsible when we are hit again… it is worth giving up some civil liberty for security (SIDE NOTE: NOT ACCORDING TO OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, I QUOTE BEN FRANKLIN “THOSE WILLING TO SACRAFICE LIBERTY FOR SECURITY DESERVE NEITHER”)… it’s not being used for anything other than terror etc…” all who say these things, I truely believe in the bottom of my heart are stand up good people. YOUR JUST WRONG!
Look, prior to setting up a mission, any competant terror cell is going to get a “playbook” Nobody is going to send a message through e-mail, or snail mail that says “OK, take the nuclear bomb ____________ and set it off at _____ oclock.” They are going to tell a story about how uncle Ralph puked at the Chiefs game from a rotten hot dog, and that’s going to mean to set off the bomb in LA, as decoded in the playbook!
In other words, all these post 9/11 terror laws really only affect non-terrorists. Also, here is something very interesting. Want to know the first 2 moves of the DOJ post Patriot Act? 1.) performed a snoop and poop warrant on a west coast company that produced very hard bondage style pornography, and then raided the facility later. 2.) arrested “Chong” for selling drug accessories on the internet with evidence impossible to acquire prior to the patriot act.
Here is another interesting fact few know. The Patriot Act, while called different things, was written piece meal over the 20-30 years prior to the Patriot Act being passed. These were doctrines/laws/policies that leaders from both sides of the fence more or less said “ARE YOU F-ING CRAZY” because they are WRONG! It was wrong then, and it still is. The bottom line is that the patriot act is a bunch of ideas that were shot down before going anywhere that were picked up, polished off, a few words moved around/changed and passed into law. That is how such a huge and complex act was put together so quickly.
The Congressman who passed the patriot act, from BOTH sides of the aisle didn’t read it, they admit it. They wouldn’t have passed it if they did. The Bush Administration basically held a gun to their heads, using terror as an excuse to completely change how our government operates.
IT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE OVERTHROW OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT! Not in entirely, their is still more to come, and much had taken place prior, but it was a huge leap forward.
We Americans sit in stupors induced by too much television/internet and chemicals and just let this country slip away. Let all TV broadcasts be disabled for 2 years, and most elected officials would be hanging from the street lights.
I voted for Bush twice, and his dad, as well as for Dole. This “Republican” party as it exists today isn’t my Republican party anymore.
I used to go to Church every sunday, and to this day believe in Jesus Christ as my personal savior, but I wouldn’t step foot into one today. Not since Christianity merged with politics. NEVER AGAIN, NO WAY!