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

radical Islamic moderates

[florin]

We do not know what lies ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists I believe he makes an important distinction here, and I would hate to see those cuddly moderate Islamic extremists being lumped in with the bad guys.

Re:radical Islamic moderates

[Deadplant]

When "pissing someone off" is done by butchering his family, installing and supporting sick-fucks like the Shah and Sadaam and carpet bombing his country then yes, you can expect a violent reaction.

I'm sorry, but we'll ALWAYS piss someone off just by existing. It's not an excuse for terrorism. That is what we call a 'straw-man' argument.
You are not pissing them off by existing.
You are pissing them off by killing and torturing them.

Re:radical Islamic moderates

[Jor-Al]

So which Iraqis were butchering US citizens? Last time I checked the makeup of the 9/11 hijackers was:

Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. So why are we going after Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, again?

Misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

Hedging our Bets with ParanoidLinux

[graveyhead]

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

One word must be missing here

[temcat]

We do not know what lies are ahead in our nation's fight against radical Islamic extremists

There, that's closer to the truth.

Perpetual War?

[Thelasko]

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?

Re:Parity

[evilRhino]

If bribing a judge is an extra impediment, I welcome it.

Re:Parity

[Jor-Al]

You'd think so, but apparently even the rubber-stamp FISA court had too high of standards for Bush & Co. And that's saying something since it's ridiculously easy for the government to get a warrant from FISA (hell there is even an exemption so that you can apply for the warrant 72 hours after the fact).

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]

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.)

this comes as a surprise?

[gadabyte]

be afraid of president mccain makes a rather compelling case that mccain is an "authoritarian maverick," and exposes many of his worrisome positions. my personal favorite:

McCain said, "I would rather have a clean government than one...where 'First Amendment rights' are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I'd rather have a clean government." if he views a clean government as more important than our petty first amendment rights (religion, speech, assembly, press, etc) - what does his penchant for associating with lobbyists, and his history with charles keating say about his respect for our freedoms?

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON.

Re:Parity

[Jor-Al]

The warrantless wiretaps may, technically, be illegal (indeed, they probably are). There is no may about it as such acts are codified as illegal under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It should be quite telling when a president has such a shaky foundation for wanting to do wiretaps that they have to bypass the FISA court because they might reject your request.

Re:Parity

[jeiler]

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.

Re:Parity

[hostyle]

Hippy!

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.

It's a system of checks and balances

[n0-0p]

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.

Re:Parity

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Re:Parity

[Jor-Al]

You just made his point. Was I trying to dispute his point? I was in fact clarifying the situation for anyone who may not know as to how ridiculous your request would be to have it rejected by a FISA judge.

And it is not at all apparent that the standards(what fucking standards???) of the FISA court were too high for Bush. I don't know how substantiated they were, but at around the time this whole thing broke, I remember reading about how such a thing was actually a problem. That the Bush Administrations requests were even too ridiculous for even a FISA judge to approve.

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.

Re:Parity

[Original Replica]

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.