Originally Posted by Slon

It's beginning to look more and more like 1984.

Originally Posted by Luap

Yep, and with good reason, in my opinion

Jviehe, a look at history shows that powerful governments commit abuses, and given that the US are a republic under the rule of law, I think we should be very, very careful of how that law evolves. This is just a hypothetical and rhetorical question, but are we still a republic when the executive branch has the authority to freely interpret and execute law as its discretion? I know this particular instance of a postal reform law's signing statement is a far cry from the day of a dictatorial executive, but I believe the question bears asking.

I'm not all that familiar with Michels' "iron law of oligarchy," but I tend to agree that any large organization tends to come under the excessive influence of a minority, and the United States federal government is no exception. I don't mean to comment on the positivity or negativity of such a rule by a "knowledgeable" few, a technocratic elite if you will, it is just that a "rule by the few" in general is a self-serving and self-perpetuating sort of government, no matter its original or nominal goals. For that reason, I don't believe it is wise to extend the power of government except in instances of extreme emergency, and America doesn't appear to be in such a situation right now. I've been told once before, on this site, that I should have been watching from one of the windows of the tower as the plane soared toward me, so I would know the terror of terrorism and would understand the need for granting the state more rights; as sick as that it is, it made me understand much more clearly that there is "nothing to fear but fear itself."

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

Hmmm so the president now has the right to commit a mass federal offense against his own people

Originally Posted by jviehe

And when they do, they will be dealt with. Until that time, my life is more important than my privacy. But thats just me.

Originally Posted by Maxture

This is strange:

1) Some of the most extreme neocons have openly expressed their fear that "the liberals and Communist underground movement" are quite successfully conspiring to turn the USA into a State with a semi-Communist regime. (That is what they think - I don't agree.)

2) The same people want to change the laws so that the State be able to increase its control of the citizens.

On one hand, these people are very suspicious towards the State, and fear that there is a great risk that it might end up in the hands of some really nasty forces.

On the other hand, these people seem to be naively certain that the State will remain in the hands of good and reliable people who will never misuse laws which gives them detailed control over the citizens.

I'd like to ask everyone who defends the new proposal that the State shall have the right to open mail: Maybe you trust the present Authorities and think that they will never abuse this possibility. But do you now trust all Authorities in the future?

Can you tell your children that "any Authority in the future will be good and worthy of your full confidence"?

Because, as you know, a new law will be used not only by those who issue the law, but by all the following authorities.

Originally Posted by Maxture

Zing? What's that?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Once we have defeated the enemy, this will no longer be neccesary and I will expect rights to be returned.

Originally Posted by Maxture

Thanks, IM27. You too produce some great posts!

Originally Posted by IronMaiden27

Opening other people's mail is a federal offense