McCain Supports Warrantless Domestic Surveillance

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "While there have been shifting reports about McCain's view on warrantless wiretapping, nothing could be clearer than the latest comment by McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, who said, 'We do not know what lies ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.' Article II, of course, is what Bush has argued gives the President virtually unlimited power during war, and McCain has already voted in favor of Telecom Immunity, though he sometimes mentions, to those asking for accountability, wanting to hold hearings about what the telecoms did."

Comments

McFlipFlop

[SpaceLifeForm]

This flip flop took longer than usual. He usually changes position within a couple of days.

McCain, spying and executive power: A complete reversal in 6 months

Re:Parity

[Jor-Al]

I found out in 2 seconds using Google: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me Who knows what might happen when he gets in office, though.

Re:Parity

[Goobergunch]

From Obama's site:

Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.

Not particularly useful. However, I did find this reference to a January speech:

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

Re:Parity

[parcel]

Obama's voting record, from the ACLU's viewpoint:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=25424&session_num=0&page=legScore

And for fun, McCain's:
http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?congress=110&repId=122&session_num=2&page=legScore

grr, forgot link

[Goobergunch]

The second quote refers to http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html.

Re:hrm

[KGIII]

Probably not a whole lot happened to them but they haven't done much in the way of making the news for violence termed "terrorism" in a long time. This, I suspect, is because they "won" the war, at least for a while. So, well, now we call it just plain war when it is done by the extreme Christians (Fundamental Right Wing Republicans seem to fit the bill nicely) and we call what they do "terrorism."

Just for the record I don't support either side in this and the above is just my guess so take it as a grain of salt. I just don't see much extremism (from the view of the masses) from the Christians lately but I'd happily see the view that what is going on could be extreme Christan workings specifically the war in Iraq.

Oh - and if modded troll, well I don't mind. However, this is NOT "Informative." It may be interesting, it may even be insightful, but it surely isn't informative. (I keep getting odd moderations.)

Clear as mud

[cfulmer]

That's an absurd argument -- "McCain says he'll follow the Constitution." "You mean, the same Constitution that President Bush says gives him the right to abuse small farm animals? Why McCain must want to abuse small farm animals too!"

There isn't much question that tapping *international* calls is within the government's power. (At least I haven't heard any major Democrats argue with this). There just isn't enough information in this post to know if this is what McCain is talking about, or if it's domestic surveillance.

You should leave the political hack jobs to the professionals.

Re:Parity

[sammy baby]

This is from an Obama Q&A with the Boston Globe. Very first question:

1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

I think that's about as clear a statement as you're likely to get.

(link courtesy of Glenn Greenwald.)

Obama is Against Warrantless Wiretaps

[Doc Ruby]

When Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) used his presidential primary campaign to lead the Congressional campaign to stop Bush's FISA violations, Obama supported Dodd's filibuster, specifically saying (through his spokesperson Bill Burton):

Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.

Re:Signing Statements.

[MobyDisk]

Not true.

First Google hit on a search for obama and signing statements

Under what circumstances, if any, would you sign a bill into law but also issue a signing statement reserving a constitutional right to bypass the law?

Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

ECHELON anyone?

[thule]

Maybe Obama will go back to using surveillance for more important things like helping create jobs: ECHELONG.

It is amazing to me that people go with their guts on the domestic wiretap stuff. First of all, from what I've been able to figure, there has been no domestic wiretaps without FISA. Any NSA wiretaps that lead to a domestic connection can be follow up with a FISA warrant. FISA was just worried about where the requests were coming from. Previously the FBI could not get a warrant from a NSA lead. After 9/11 this was allowed. See:
Secret Court's Judges Were Warned About NSA Spy Data: [...] "the government's failure to share information about its spying program had rendered useless a federal screening system that the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted information."

That was deemed stupid and changed after 9/11. There are some hold outs though.

Remember that you can I can call a tapped number and law enforcement can listen to our call. The tap request only covers the tap target, but they can certainly listen in to anyone that calls that number. So when NSA is listening in to communications in the battlefield, that routes to a domestic number, that does not constitute "domestic wire tapping" since the tap is on the foreign source.

The other aspect of the "domestic" part is Call Detail Records. You do no own your call history, the phone company does. They can do whatever the heck they want with that information. Some states are making CDR's private, but traditionally, it is owned by the phone company. The FBI could use CDR's to see who has been talking to you and get a FISA warrant based on that information.

So, do I think things will change under Obama? Nope, not at all. Even under Clinton's "wall" of separation between the NSA and the FBI, there were still warrantless wiretaps.

Learn some history.

[copponex]

England and America have directly been involved in dividing up Arab land and resources since they switched their militaries from steam-powered equipment to oil powered equipment. We've been militarily involved in Iraq since before WWI. We destroyed the democratic government of Iran becuase they dared to demand that they keep the profit from their own natural resources. We formed al Queda when we used them as cannon fodder to fuck around with the Russians. We supplied Israel with capital and military equipment to commit acts of genocide against the Palestinians (mostly because we didn't want Jewish refugees in America) and they allowed us to establish a military base without too much fuss. We helped the invade Lebanon, destroy the entire country, and the direct result was Hezbollah. We funded the army of Saddam Hussein knowing full well that it would be used to murder thousands of his own people. Our military has helped with the slow crush of the PLO, which resulted in Hamas.

So, after a hundred years of oppression and suffering, they strike one blow about a ten thousand times less deadly in the number of dead and about a hundred thousand times less damaging as a matter of culture and economy.

And then they won after they proved that the infidel doesn't have the moral fortitude to give everyone the right to a lawyer, no matter how heinous their crime. They proved that we have no moral superiority when it comes to torture and human rights.

America is not the same place it used to be. All there is to do now is sit back and watch what's left of the power structure squabble over the table scraps until we run out of resources and the next revolution occurs.

But don't pay any attention to this. Listen to the President. Go shopping, and he'll take care of the rest.

ACLU and gun ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

they [the ACLU] deride and ignore the 2nd amendment. That's how it washes on the whole, but you should realize that their official position is a bit more nuanced (though not "enlightened", as it explicitly paves the way for disarmament and subjugation of the individual to the state):

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

I think the typical American "liberal" sees it this way, while the stereotypical American "liberal" is more extreme.

I would like to point out that the view that the Second Amendment applies only to "a well-regulated militia" is irrelevant because of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, in concert or alone. The right to defend oneself against coercion with any means is neither enumerated nor disparaged, and it is reserved by the people.

Lack of a constitutional guarantee is not license to legislate away whatever powers and freedoms we choose, as noted explicitly and in plain language at the end of the Bill of Rights.

Troll Story

[N8F8]

Thisd whole story is a troll. Hey look, a McCain piñata. Everyone take a swing! Meanwhile Obama make an overt threat against Iran, about a complete a flip-flop as you can have from his lovey-dovey approach from two weeks ago and you guys let it slide.

Israeli support.

[copponex]

Israel kills Palestinians with American weapons, and keeps their economy afloat with American funds. Over one hundred billion dollars thus far (close to 150 billion with interest, I believe.)

Palestine has received less than four or five billion in the same period if my guess is right, with the added bonus of our veto of any United Nations resolution in their favor.

how about

[Phantom of the Opera]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

â" Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." - Governing Magazine, July, 1998

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." - Business Week, July 30, 2001

bullshit

[nguy]

[Middle Eastern nations] were flourishing democracies with vast untapped resources threatening to break free of the bonds of colonial Europe.

Read something about the history of the Middle East before you spout such bullshit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East

The Middle East was a social and political dump before the Europeans got involved, and it still is. And given Arab aspirations for re-building their empire and imposing their religion on others, I don't even particularly care that the West imposed its rule on the region.

Except every other developed western nation since WWII (which I consider a definitive paradigm shift worldwide.) The whole of Europe have learned their lesson. For some reason we don't seem to get it.

First of all, the Europe you see today was largely constructed by the US; if it had been up to the French, British, and Russians, they would have repeated the mistakes of WWI and we'd have had WWIII by now.

Furthermore, you really have no clue about the attitudes or motivations behind European politics.

Are you a hedonist or a Nazi? I can't really tell.

Well, I can tell that you are an uneducated lout.

Re:radical Islamic moderates

[nguy]

But... but... they hate our freedoms!!! Right?!?!? Right?!?!?


More precisely, they hate that we have those freedoms while they don't, and they believe that we are responsible for them not having those freedoms.

Re:Parity

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Um. You can begin surveillance immediately under FISA. You have up to 72 hours after the start of the tap to get a warrant, from a judge who is on call 24-7.

Any excuse about FISA being "restrictive" is bullshit.

Re:Parity

[Lost Engineer]

Just to follow up on what you've said:

I recommend this article for a critical view of McCain's attitude towards personal freedom.

In short, he doesn't believe you should have it. You're all soldier's in McCain's American army and insubordination will not be tolerated.