Saturday, June 16, 2007
Live or Memorex?
For those of a certain age, you will remember the commercials that Memorex used to run where you were asked to determine a live performance from the same performance running on a Memorex tape cassette. These commercials ran when audio components became more sophisticated and CD's promised a clearer sound than what we were all used to, whether it was on an 8 track or on a tape cassette. Memorex wanted us to think twice before we chucked our cassette players for a CD player.
The tapes have nothing to do with tonight's posting. What it provides is the backdrop by which I ask you to make a comparison between a press release and an "article" appearing in a specialized publication. What makes this all the more troublesome is that the article's author is a deputy editor.
DM News, a trade publication dealing in "Direct, Database and Internet Marketing," has an article written by Deputy Editor Melissa Campanelli on a Senate Resolution that passed Committee challenging the interpretation of a signing statement that President Bush made late last year regarding the sanctity of the mail. Specifically, Bush wrote:
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.
As I noted in an earlier post, there was much ado about nothing in the controversy that ensued claiming that the "Monarch-in-Chief" claimed the authority to indiscriminately open all our mail in order to further some imperial aim. As far as I was concerned--and as signing statements go--this was among a weaker challenge among the thousand+ challenges the President has made. As the law read, President Bush would have to retrieve a search warrant on a package that was ticking or gave reasonable suspicion that it contained harmful material that placed numerous citizens in harms way. And more or less, that is what the signing statement qualifies. In case of an emergency, government officials could open a package or even an envelope when they have reason to believe that it contains harmful matter.
The Senate Resolution (S.Res. 22) simply makes clear that we all can rest easy and be certain that President Bush, VP Cheney, and Karl Rove are not gathered around a desk overnight getting a good chuckle reading the love letter we sent to the object of our particular affection.
As a caveat, let me say that this Resolution provides an example of how the Congress can mitigate the force of a signing statement--and doing so without creating a whole subset in the US Code as many of the pieces of legislation last year purported to do in order to check the force of a signing statement. No mess!
Back to the purpose of this posting tonight. Take a look at Deputy Editor Campanelli's article and the actual press release from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Is it me, or is their a lot of cutting and pasting happening in the article? And from a Deputy Editor, no less! What in the world is the typical reporter getting away with over at DM News?
|
The tapes have nothing to do with tonight's posting. What it provides is the backdrop by which I ask you to make a comparison between a press release and an "article" appearing in a specialized publication. What makes this all the more troublesome is that the article's author is a deputy editor.
DM News, a trade publication dealing in "Direct, Database and Internet Marketing," has an article written by Deputy Editor Melissa Campanelli on a Senate Resolution that passed Committee challenging the interpretation of a signing statement that President Bush made late last year regarding the sanctity of the mail. Specifically, Bush wrote:
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.
As I noted in an earlier post, there was much ado about nothing in the controversy that ensued claiming that the "Monarch-in-Chief" claimed the authority to indiscriminately open all our mail in order to further some imperial aim. As far as I was concerned--and as signing statements go--this was among a weaker challenge among the thousand+ challenges the President has made. As the law read, President Bush would have to retrieve a search warrant on a package that was ticking or gave reasonable suspicion that it contained harmful material that placed numerous citizens in harms way. And more or less, that is what the signing statement qualifies. In case of an emergency, government officials could open a package or even an envelope when they have reason to believe that it contains harmful matter.
The Senate Resolution (S.Res. 22) simply makes clear that we all can rest easy and be certain that President Bush, VP Cheney, and Karl Rove are not gathered around a desk overnight getting a good chuckle reading the love letter we sent to the object of our particular affection.
As a caveat, let me say that this Resolution provides an example of how the Congress can mitigate the force of a signing statement--and doing so without creating a whole subset in the US Code as many of the pieces of legislation last year purported to do in order to check the force of a signing statement. No mess!
Back to the purpose of this posting tonight. Take a look at Deputy Editor Campanelli's article and the actual press release from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. Is it me, or is their a lot of cutting and pasting happening in the article? And from a Deputy Editor, no less! What in the world is the typical reporter getting away with over at DM News?
