About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

ABC, CBS, CNN largely ignored Bush's claim of power to search mail

January 05, 2007 7:40 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: While NBC has aired a segment on President Bush's "signing statement" on a postal reform bill that "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant," ABC, CBS, and CNN have largely ignored the story, and ABC reported that Bush "acquired new powers" and suggested that they were "included" the bill.

14 Comments

On January 4, the New York Daily News reported that on December 20, President Bush attached a "signing statement" to a postal reform bill that "quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant." According to the Daily News: "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it." ABC, CBS, and CNN have largely ignored the story, however, and ABC's Good Morning America reported that Bush "acquired new powers" and suggested that they were "included" the bill.

As Media Matters for America has noted, Bush's unprecedented use of "signing statements" -- through which Bush, according to Boston Globe staff writer Charlie Savage, has "quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office" -- has been largely ignored by the media. On the January 4 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), whom Cavuto described as the "likely chairman" of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, claimed that there is "no reason" for Bush's December 20 signing statement because existing law allows the president to obtain a search warrant after conducting a search.

From the January 4 edition of Your World:

STUPAK: But, even if the president says he has the right to open it in an emergency, I still feel that's contrary to the law and to our Constitution. If the president needs an emergency, he has a procedure, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. We have been through this issue before with the FISA court. The president has a couple days to go and seek a search warrant. There's no reason to open people's mail without a warrant or without going to FISA court. There's just no reason for it.

However, on the January 4 broadcast of ABC's Good Morning America, correspondent David Muir initially failed to note that Bush attached a signing statement to the bill, suggesting instead that Bush's "new powers" were part of the postal reform bill. Muir gave no indication of any controversy surrounding Bush's actions, nor that his declared "new powers" may contravene existing law:

MUIR: President Bush has reportedly acquired new powers enabling the government to open the mail of Americans without a judge's warrant. The New York Daily News says the new powers apply only to emergencies, and they were included when the president signed a new postal law while Congress was in winter recess. This comes after a -- a year after president's secret domestic wiretapping program was revealed.

Later in the program, Muir reported that the Daily News "says Bush tacked on the new authority" in December:

MUIR: The White House is dismissing reports this morning the president is asserting a new power to open people's mail without a warrant. The New York Daily News says the President tacked on the new authority to a postal reform law last month. Just a year ago, the president drew criticism when his domestic wiretapping program was revealed.

On the January 4 broadcast of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson reported simply:

GIBSON: The Bush administration, which has already taken heat over warrantless wiretaps, is now asserting its power to search mail. It was revealed today the president has signed a statement saying the law will be interpreted to allow the searches to the maximum extent possible. Civil liberties groups are demanding to know whether mail is already being opened.

On CNN, the story received similarly scant attention. It was reported only once on the January 4 edition of The Situation Room, as part of CNN anchor Jack Cafferty's "The Cafferty File":

CAFFERTY: President Bush is now claiming he has the power to open Americans' mail without a warrant. The New York Daily News, in an exclusive report this morning, says that late last month, Mr. Bush issued a signing statement declaring his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

According to the president, that includes the need to, quote, "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials" unquote, and "the need for physical searches for foreign intelligence collection."

The president's signing statement contradicted a postal reform bill that he had just signed, which protects first-class mail from searches without a warrant. Experts say the government could easily abuse this power and open up large amounts of mail.

Really? Nah, they'd never do that, would they? One senior official says, quote: "It takes executive branch authority beyond anything we've ever known," unquote.

But the White House tells the Daily News the president wasn't claiming any new power. They say that in certain circumstances, the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches. And, of course, we can all trust the decider to decide what constitutes a reasonable search, can't we?

Here's the question: Should President Bush be able to open your mail without a warrant? E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile -- Wolf.

CNN's Lou Dobbs mentioned it briefly on the January 4 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight:

DOBBS: The privacy of U.S. mail protected by law, but President Bush may have changed all that. When the president signed a postal bill last month, President Bush added a signing statement that appears to loosen the rules.

President Bush authorized the opening of mail for reasons of public safety and the collection of foreign intelligence. The ACLU is investigating what that means exactly, whether it's already been used, in fact, to open our mail.

Meanwhile, CBS has completely ignored the story -- it was not mentioned on either the January 4 broadcast of the CBS Evening News or the January 4 or January 5 broadcasts of The Early Show.

In contrast, the January 4 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News devoted an entire segment to the controversy:

BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): We are back with NBC News "In Depth" and what one newspaper headline has termed a new government effort to push the envelope of the law, claiming the right to open and read the mail of ordinary American citizens to prevent, the Bush administration says tonight, a possible terrorist attack. Is it really legal, however? Our report from NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams.

P. WILLIAMS: A claim by the Bush administration that it has the power to open U.S. mail without a search warrant to gather intelligence has alarmed civil libertarians. They say the government has never publicly asserted that power before.

KATE MARTIN (Center for National Security Studies): We have a president who continues to believes that he's above the law, that he can do as he please, he can ignore the Congress, he can ignore the Constitution.

P. WILLIAMS: Federal law has long required a search warrant to open first-class mail unless postal authorities suspect it contains something dangerous, like a bomb or a hazardous chemical. But in signing a postal bill just before Christmas, President Bush said federal law also gives the government authority to open the mail, quote, "for foreign intelligence collection." White House spokesman Tony Snow today said that's nothing new.

TONY SNOW (White House press secretary): What the signing statement indicates is what present law allows in making it clear what the provisions are.

P. WILLIAMS: But members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, say that's not what they intended the law to do. They call it another example of a president claiming new legal authority while signing a bill into law.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME): I was really surprised. There was absolutely nothing in the postal reform bill that in any way diminished or changed the privacy protection for domestic sealed mail.

P. WILLIAMS: Tonight, administration lawyers insist the government has long had the authority to conduct searches of the property of noncitizens to gather foreign intelligence, and that, they say, includes opening any mail that's found. But members of Congress say that's a power to read the mail they've never heard of, and they say they'll be asking questions of their own. Pete Williams, NBC News, Washington.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by holly (January 05, 2007 7:49 pm ET)
         

      Even though I'm not a proctologist, I'd like to shine a light up Bush's back porch, for I suspect he has a crowbar jammed somewhere up there, thus explaining his extreme rigidity. However, I don't declare myself the president's proctologist and commence the search. I just wish that Bush didn't declare himself the decider and proceed to decide what's constitutional before apparently reading the Constitution.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sams Computer (January 06, 2007 12:38 am ET)
         

      He's the Decider:

      GWB: - "But I’m the decider, and I decide what’s best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.” ...

      Then the real Deciders Voted and he quickly fired Don Rumsfeld. Only problem is Bush doesn't seem to care about the other things we wanted when we voted.

      He decides whats Best in the Constitution. He decides whats Best for us unimportant voters.

      He decides whats Best to win his Iraq War. To hell with the will of the people, or the Generals, or the prominent experts on the subject.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (January 06, 2007 2:07 am ET)
           

        We're all deciders. Bush doesn't seem to get that. As President, he's had the opportunity to do a lot of deciding,unfortunately, he's been pretty consistently incompetent at deciding.

        I decided in 2000 that he was a knob, and voted against him. A lot of other people decided he'd be the guy, Fair enough, that's the game, I gave him a shot.

        In 2004, I decided Bush had been a very unimpressive Pres., and felt confident that after 4 years the BS wouldn't get him close enough to steal it.

        Oops.

        I haven't seen the polls lately, but I think there's about 35% of this country that decided they like Bush at some point, and just can't seem to get over it.

        On the bright side, I think our most recent elections show that MAYBE enough Americans are paying attention to do some responsible deciding.

        I'm optimistic enough to hope that, assuming we can keep the Dems from getting as dirty as the Repubs, we may not have to see anyone as embarrassing as The Decider representing our great nation for a long time.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by holly (January 06, 2007 11:24 am ET)
           

        You're right. Bush's role isn't to decide. It is to serve (the people) and protect (the Constitution). He's reversed his role. He protects (his office) and serves (the status quo).

        Report Abuse
        • Author by leatherhelmet (January 07, 2007 1:12 pm ET)
             

          Opening mail in an emergency is legal and is allowed by FISA.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (January 07, 2007 3:25 pm ET)
               

            Who has more credibility on this issue?

            According to the Daily News: "That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it."

            Would that be the experts cited by the Daily News or Leather who is virtually never right about anything? Let me ponder that a while.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by autopsychic (January 07, 2007 8:31 pm ET)
                 

              I certainly don't think anyone here has any credibility to interpret law. I think if it is illegal then the supreme court will not allow it. Don't you?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (January 07, 2007 9:43 pm ET)
                   

                That post here regularly. Like wiretapping I have no problem with any intelligence gathering that is done within the confines of the law. Now the Daily News cited several experts that said it did NOT fall within the law, now if you know something they dont then cough it up, if you dont then you are wasting our time.

                Congressman Henry Waxman who was a co-sponser of the law in question and OUGHT to know if it says the President DOES have such a right disagrees as do all experts cited

                "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.

                [link to www.netscape.com]

                Now when you can cough up the law that says the government DOESNT need a warrant anymore to open people mail and Bush just SAYING I am Phaorah and I can do whatever I want doesnt count get back to us until then, Get a darn warrant. Under current conditions I dont believe it woud be that hard.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by moresby82 (January 06, 2007 3:48 pm ET)
         

      Now O'Reilly has not only Olbermann but Scarbrough, as well, attacking him for his inanity. O'Ranting O'Reilly is on a get NBC kick and I'll bet i9t is about recent reporting on Bush's signing statement that he has a right to read first class mail without a warrant. The rest of the media has been pretty whimpy abour reporting it. It was in a very small column inch piece toward the last third of the paper in my large city. If we Dems whimp out, do not cover all of this in the upcoming hearings, and do something about each and every breach of our privacy laws, I sincerely believe America will enter into the first phases of a true revolution.

      Peg

      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (January 06, 2007 9:40 pm ET)
         

      Will claim the power to disband congress, cancel elections and declare himself Pharoah

      Report Abuse
    • Author by lindenbully (January 06, 2007 10:18 pm ET)
         

      The never ending intrusion of the government into the private lives of its citizens and the relentlessness of its efforts to keep any and all documentation that would shed light on the government's malfeasance, ineptitude and hypocrisy from the public eye and what do you get? Yep, you guessed it: A POLICE STATE.

      Funny thing about a police state is that it is an oxymoron. The people in charge can bend, break and ignore laws all they want with no consequences. That's what we've seen for the past six years. Looks like we'll get more of it for at least another two. Sadly, a lot of this has been achieved with if not open, at least tacit approval from a sizable chunk of the electorate. Unrelenting exposure of Bush's continual end-runs around the Constitution via shady tactics such as signing statements may go a long way in disabusing these fearful and gullible citizens of their trust in the President.

      While we're on the subject, I think high on the agenda for the new Congress should be the very idea of these signing statements. What legal foundation do they rest upon? Where in the Constitution are they mentioned? How can a signing statement effectively nullify laws passed by Congress? Has this country become so fearful that such brazen disregard for the rule of law can become a non-event? Someone wake me up and tell me I'm dreaming...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by misterb (January 06, 2007 10:53 pm ET)
         

      the mainstream media. They lie and obfuscate the truth. They are bought and paid for by big money and big business. Their advertising is purchased by big business and they are owned by the same crowd. What makes you think that the lying would stop when the commercial goes off?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by ljjlotto (January 08, 2007 12:47 am ET)
         

      A Repub response in the nieghborhood bar. I don't mind, I've done nothing wrong, have you? They just don't get the point. Mindless $50,000 a yr. people who think every- things alright. Pathetic, but real.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (January 08, 2007 7:59 am ET)
           

        I hate the excuse of "if you've done nothing wrong" and all. It's silly, and dangerous. Because now, if the powers to be are ignoring the laws to begin with, who is now to say that they can't determine whatever it is you're doing is wrong, even though the law says it isn't? People who make that statement don't realize what happens when you let the government nibble away at your rights, and your civil liberties. They don't understand what the ramifications would be. The best way to refute those right wingers when they defend things like that I've found though is to not use logic, and actual facts, but just use this phrase, "Would you feel the same way if Hillary Clinton was President and she was opening your mail?"

        I'm betting that their answer would be not only "NO!", but more along the lines of, "HELL NO!!".

        So why do they want to let W do the things they wouldn't want a democrat doing to them? That's the real question, and because W has been so truthful with us since the start of his Presidency... Jeesh.

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.