Update: Mainstream Media picks up story on Bush opening mail without warrant (spying)

W pushes envelope on U.S. spying
 New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the (NY) Daily News has learned

Funnies: Complaint for Bush? Write Your Sister (ABC News)

Bush’s statement opens up mail privacy debate (St. Petersburg Times)

Editorial: Dear John (and Bush, too (Milford Daily News, MA)
From PostalReporter.com reader:

(12/26/06) Did anyone read this? It appears that President Bush intends to ignore some provisions of Public Law 109-435 (Postal Reform Act), such as what mail can be opened or who he can appoint to the Board of Governors. -end of reader submission by DC-

 In testimony to Congress earlier this year, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said:

“We are always, of course, subject to the Fourth Amendment. So the activities of any kind of surveillance within the United States would, of course, be subject to the Fourth Amendment,” which requires “probable cause” and a court warrant before the property of Americans can be searched.”

Last year, the Bush Administration tried unsuccessfully (via including a provision in the Patriot Act) to eliminate the Postal Service’s ability to exercise any oversight in the formulation or execution of a mail cover

President’s Statement on Signing H.R. 6407, the “Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act” excerpts:

The executive branch shall construe subsections 202(a) and 502(a) of title 39, as enacted by subsections 501(a) and 601(a) of the Act, which purport to limit the qualifications of the pool of persons from whom the President may select appointees in a manner that rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the positions, in a manner consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The executive branch shall also construe as advisory the purported deadline in subsection 605(c) for the making of an appointment, as is consistent with the Appointments Clause.

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.

According to ConsortiumNews.com:

Correcting misleading testimony to Congress, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has signaled that George W. Bush’s warrantless surveillance of Americans went beyond the known eavesdropping on communications to suspected terrorists overseas.

…in challenging Bush’s right to ignore the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires a special court to approve wiretaps – Leahy demanded to know if the administration’s legal interpretation also let Bush conduct other warrantless spying on Americans, including tapping purely domestic phone calls, mail openings and “black bag” break-ins into people’s homes and offices.

Gonzales: We are always, of course, subject to the Fourth Amendment. So the activities of any kind of surveillance within the United States would, of course, be subject to the Fourth Amendment,” which requires “probable cause” and a court warrant before the property of Americans can be searched.

Leahy persisted. “Under your interpretation of this, can you go in and do mail searches? Can you go into e-mails? Can you open mail? Can you do black-bag jobs? … Can you go and do that (to) Americans?”

Gonzales responded, “Sir, I’ve tried to outline for you and the committee what the President has authorized, and that is all that he has authorized.”

“Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens?” Leahy continued. “That you can answer, yes or no.”

Gonzales: “There is all kinds of wild speculation about…”

Leahy: “Did it authorize it?”