Slashdot Mirror
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."
This is very conclusory. McCain says he is going to be consistent with the Constitution, so that means he supports warrantless surveillance? That's quite the logical leap. This statement is completely unclear. He may easily interpret Article II differently than Bush (and there are many indications that he does) and this statement shows nothing different from that.
Good old Slashdot political smearing.
If you want to read it from his site, there's a pdf that explains: Revise the PATRIOT Act: Barack Obama believes that we must provide law enforcement the tools it needs to investigate, disrupt, and capture terrorists, but he also believes we need real oversight to avoid jeopardizing the rights and ideals of all Americans. There is no reason we cannot fight terrorism while maintaining our civil liberties. Unfortunately, the current administration has abused the powers given to it by the USA PATRIOT Act. A March 2007 Justice Department audit found the FBI improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the PATRIOT Act to secretly obtain personal information about American citizens. As president, Barack Obama would revisit the PATRIOT Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision.
Strengthen Warrantless Wiretap Approval Process: Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administrationâ(TM)s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Paid for by Obama for America Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional Intelligence Committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law. And another that goes on to say: Eliminate Warrantless Wiretaps. Barack Obama opposed the Bush Administrationâ(TM)s initial policy on warrantless wiretaps because it crossed the line between protecting our national security and eroding the civil liberties of American citizens. As president, Obama would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to provide greater oversight and accountability to the congressional intelligence committees to prevent future threats to the rule of law. I'd say (even from a few of his voting records) that he is against it for the most part. Or at the very least, revising it severely.
Doesn't really matter in a two party system though, does it? Take what you can get over the crap I read about in this article from McCain's campaign.
My work here is dung.
They were the best boogie-man ever. The Islamists may, eventually, someday, get nukes. The USSR had enough nukes to sterilize the planet. And a huge conventional army. And chemical and biological weapons galore. As far as keeping the populace pissing itself in fear and doing whatever the authorities tell them to, Islamists just don't hold a candle to our dear former enemies, the Soviets. Well, I suppose they'll have to do until the authorities can cook up something scarier.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, by remaining continuously at war, the President has unlimited power?
Brilliant!
What defines a war? Does it have to be against another country? Can it be...
a war on terror?
a war on drugs?
a war on cancer?
a war on poverty?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I'm often positively impressed when politicians change their minds, assuming they did it because they learned more about the issue. I'm not impressed with McCain's descent into the bowels of extreme right wing Bushism because he's done it to appease extremist voters to his own benefit.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
If bribing a judge is an extra impediment, I welcome it.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Responding to my own post.
Yes, I can imagine plenty of situations where a president might commit an act that, while technically illegal, prevents more harm than it causes. By the same token, I cannot imagine any such situation that could not be horribly abused.
Warrantless wiretaps could catch criminals, but it is precisely the penchant for abusing authority that we, as human beings, have that led to laws requiring a court order for warrants. Bush has abused that authority, and in doing so has broken the law.
Warrantless wiretaps may be useful for preventing crimes and terrorism ... but only in the hands of a saint. Bush is no saint, and neither is McCain.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
The only reason for warrantless is so you can hide what you're doing from the other branches of government.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
The real value of FISA warrants is more reactive than proactive. FISA judges show pretty broad discretion in what they will approve, but they do so with the understanding that the warrant creates a paper trail of justification and accountability. Without that paper trail, it's almost impossible to conduct a real investigation and hold people responsible for any abuses.
Personally, I consider the original FISA requirements to be reasonable in the context of an intelligence collection mission (not traditional law enforcement). However, what Bush did to FISA is an abuse of Executive power specifically because it removes not only the weaker proactive checks, but also the stronger retroactive balances of an investigative trail.
and I'll say it again:
The extent to which those who watch over us are unwilling to be watched by us is the precise extent to which we are not a free and just society.
This has nothing to do with war, or terrorism. It is simply a matter of accountability. The people have a right to know what our elected officials do in the name of ensuring our safety, regardless of whether they actually live up to that goal or not. That we are not able to do so is the true barometer of our freedom, despite whatever a centuries-old piece of paper might proclaim.
That's really one of the most disturbing things about Bush's view of presidential power. Why don't they do things according to the law, especially when Congress has made it so easy? They seem to pick and choose which laws apply to them.
It's not surprising that McCain will follow suit. McCain lost my respect when he started flip-flopping like a fish out of water. Now it seems every day brings another reason not to trust him.
How about if we don't turn the whole nation upside down over terrorism in the first place? Isn't that the goal of terrorists, to get you to pee your pants? I'd rather not have a government full of power hungry drones watching my every move. I'll take the extremely unlikely risk that some poor slob on the other side of the earth will come after me. Judging from my drive to work every day I'd say my fellow drivers pose a far greater risk to my life than terrorists.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
DISCLAIMER: this is purely speculation, although I consider it in character for the current US administration.
You are not pissing them off by existing.
You are pissing them off by killing and torturing them.
Who knows what might happen when he gets in office, though.
That's a stupid objection that could be applied anywhere to anyone. Why bother with what the candidates say or have done at all, in that case? "Vote Hitler! I know he *said* he'd kill all the Jews, but who knows what might happen when he gets in office?"
The Taliban may be the the ONLY target we can justify over there, and a) we quit going after them, and b) we gave them all their money and weapons in the 70s (I think the 70s?)
If we got invaded by some nation bent on wiping out "radical christianity," you don't think a bunch of heavily armed down-home rednecks with a hand-bound copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook wouldn't be equipping their children so they could get that much closer to the invaders? Insurgents, indeed.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Citations, please?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
That is what the 72 hour after the fact warrant request is for. If the authorities must act right now they can, but that doesn't excuse them from judicial oversight. Nothing should ever exclude law enforcement from judicial oversight, ever. Not gag orders, not the need for expediency, not national security letters, not "sorry it's classified". Law enforcement without oversight and transparency is Fascism.
We are all just people.
That's right! They hate our freedom to invade, steal from them, install puppet governemts, tear up the puppet governments and install new ones, blame them for terrorism while remaining really friendly with countries that actuall y produce the terrorists - in fact giving them VIP rights to fly when no one else in the US is allowed to.
Yep, they hate it that anyone has that kind of freedom.
I don't therefore I'm not.