The Immediacy of Snail MailI dislike the warrant-less wiretap justifications of the Bush administration, but I can at least grasp the imagined immediacy of phone communications. Can there be any such justification for searching mail without a court order? Perhaps telephone and e-mail communications are somewhat outside the language of the 4th amendment. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Hardcopy mail sure seems to be covered under the term “papers.” I’m trying to imagine what circumstances might justify violation of the 4th amendment. There are “hot pursuit” provisions that allow police to follow a chase subject into a house due to the immediacy of probable escape or possible threat to others. Perhaps some rare circumstances exist where a mail package arrives that exhibits bomb-like ticking or poses a tangible threat, but can the intelligence value of a letter ever pose such an immediate threat? The President vows to “preserve, protect, and defend” the whole Constitution; not just the parts that are convenient. Republicans who support a smaller, less intrusive government that respects the rights of the individual should be alarmed by this step toward a police state. Would the Republicans who accept President Bush’s discretion on reading our mail and tapping our phones be as comfortable if the practice is adopted by a Democratic administration? Michael Previous: New Year's Resolution -- Next: Iowa Newspaper Interview |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
