Reasonable Al Gore Redux . . . .

And further to Al Gore's The Assault on Reason :

In this excerpt he compares the feelings the US citizens had after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

What did you feel? I don't know the words to describe my own feelings. But I would like all Americans to draw a line connecting the feelings they had when they saw the visual images of our soldiers, acting in our name, with our authority, torturing helpless people - and it was a matter of policy, even though the White House pointed fingers at the privates and corporals and said it was all their responsibility - with the emotions they felt during Hurricane Katrina when they saw those corpses in the water, people without food, water, medicine - our fellow citizens left helpless.

And of course in both cases the story is complex and many factors are involved, but I want people to draw a line connecting the feelings they had in both situations. And then I want them to draw another line connecting those responsible for both unbelievable tragedies that embarrassed our nation in the eyes of the world. Connect those who ignored the warnings about Katrina and then bungled the aftermath with those who ignored the warnings not to invade Iraq and then bungled the aftermath, and the line makes a small circle.

In the middle of that circle is President George W. Bush.

Regarding george's abuse of presidential signing statements, using the process more than all of his predecessors combined:

For example, after the administration dishonored and embarrassed the country by torturing large numbers of helpless prisoners, an overwhelming bipartisan majority passed legislation sponsored by three Republican senators - John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham - outlawing torture. Bush could have vetoed the law, but Congress almost certainly would have overridden his veto. Instead, he signed the law but announced that he did not, and would not, have to abide by it. This helps to explain why Bush has vetoed only one bill during his entire term in office. Why bother, if he can simply decide on his own whim which provisions of a law apply to him and which ones he will simply ignore?

Should we amend all of the textbooks in America to explain to schoolchildren that what has been taught for more than two centuries about checks and balances is no longer valid? Should we teach them instead that the United States Congress and the courts are merely advisory groups that make suggestions to the president on what the law should be, but that the president is all-powerful and now has the final say on everything? Should we teach them that we are a government of men, not laws? Should we teach them that we used to be a democracy but now we only pretend to be?

Good stuff.

Read it . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

Dubya's got mail - Your mail!

George W Bush, not satisfied with listening in on domestic phone calls without a warrant, has issued a signing statement which will allow the US government to read American's mail - without a warrant. (All emphasis mine)

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant

Bill S. 662, A bill to reform the postal laws of the United States, was aimed primarily at amending existing US postal laws and bring the US Postal Service into the 21st Century.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Bush's move came during the winter congressional recess and a year after his secret domestic electronic eavesdropping program was first revealed. It caught Capitol Hill by surprise.
"Despite the President's statement that he may be able to circumvent a basic privacy protection, the new postal law continues to prohibit the government from snooping into people's mail without a warrant," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the incoming House Government Reform Committee chairman, who co-sponsored the bill.
Experts said the new powers could be easily abused and used to vacuum up large amounts of mail.
"The [Bush] signing statement claims authority to open domestic mail without a warrant, and that would be new and quite alarming," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington.
"The danger is they're reading Americans' mail," she said.
"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

Uh huh. And here is what the signing statement actually says:

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.

Now, this is what was presented to Bush for signature:

The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.

That's pretty damned clear, and Bush's signing statement is a clear deviation from the intent of the bill. Further, it's a letter, which means it can be held until a warrant is obtained from a FISA court. The need to protect human life, (the ticking bomb scenario), is already provided for elsewhere.

Bush has issued more "signing statements" than all other previous US presidents combined. If you really want to know what he's all about, take a look at some of the examples of his previous signing statements.

They represent nothing less than a grab for executive power.

Enjoy that word on your US nickel. Soon enough it'll be the only place you'll find it in the US.