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.
McCain, spying and executive power: A complete reversal in 6 months
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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
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.
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.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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
Hi guys. This seems like a good opportunity to talk a bit about this new distro we've been working on.
ParanoidLinux is a distribution with a focus on privacy. All network comms will be encrypted and run through TOR by default. IM programs, etc, will be configured for secure communications by default. You'll have to go out of your way *not* to have a secure conversation in ParanoidLinux.
This idea comes from Cory Doctorow's latest book "Little Brother" which describes a Linux distro similar to what we are building, with the same name.
It's a new concept, only a couple weeks old, so don't go looking for downloads... but we are looking for help! Come join us. We're looking for programmers, artists, security experts and unix gurus to help us bring this project together.
If the government takes this basic human right from you, be proactive. Take it back. See you there!
http://www.paranoidlinux.org
irc.freenode.net, #paranoidlinux
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
We do not know what lies are ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists
There, that's closer to the truth.
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".
If bribing a judge is an extra impediment, I welcome it.
To quote a bit from the article on wikipedia just to give some perspective: In the period 1979-2006 a total of 22,990 applications for warrants were made to the Court of which 22,985 were approved (sometimes with modifications; or with the splitting up, or combining together, of warrants for legal purposes), and only 5 were definitively rejected.[4]
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.
I think that's about as clear a statement as you're likely to get.
(link courtesy of Glenn Greenwald.)
--
make install -not war
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON.
the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
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.
Hippy!
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
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.
And just look at some of the "war powers" that Congress is instructed by the Constitution to execute, in the section 8 of the Article I that defines Congress:
These "Article II powers" arguments making Bush a king are lies. Talking about them is bad enough, but protected as free speech. However, acting on them by actual officials, whether to make war despite Congress, or as an official campaign to prevent Congress from exercising its powers, is usurping Congress' rightful power by creating Executive powers that do not exist.
If the Congress passes a law or otherwise officially acts to, say, direct the US armed forces (and subcontractors to it) to put on their boots and march out of Iraq tomorrow (even if that's not quite a good idea), Congress has the power to do so. It is the president who does not have the power to stop them, and is legally obligated to follow Congress' instructions in that march.
--
make install -not war
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.
"Can anyone here imagine a situation where a technically illegal act by the President prevents more harm than it causes?"
President Bush going on a shooting spree in the White House before turning the gun on himself?
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.
DISCLAIMER: this is purely speculation, although I consider it in character for the current US administration.
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.
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?"
I don't see any harm other than the fact that he may miss someone
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Citations, please?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
"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
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.
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.