NationStates Jolt Archive

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html )
http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/03/060308_mccain2_630x_2.jpg

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president's wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.
McCain's new tack towards the Bush administration's theory of executive power comes some 10 days after a McCain surrogate stated, incorrectly it seems, that the senator wanted hearings into telecom companies' cooperation with President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, before he'd support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity.

As first reported by Threat Level, Chuck Fish, a full-time lawyer for the McCain campaign, also said McCain wanted stricter rules on how the nation's telecoms work with U.S. spy agencies, and expected those companies to apologize for any lawbreaking before winning amnesty.

But Monday, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, speaking for the campaign, disavowed those statements, and for the first time cast McCain's views on warrantless wiretapping as identical to Bush's.

[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]

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.


The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush's longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war. The administration's analysis went so far as to say the Fourth Amendment did not apply inside the United States in the fight against terrorism, in one legal opinion from 2001.

McCain's new position plainly contradicts statements he made in a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe where he implicitly criticized Bush's five-year secret end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
"I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is," McCain said.

The Globe's Charlie Savage pushed further, asking , "So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?" To which McCain answered, "I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law."

McCain's embrace of extrajudicial domestic wiretapping is effectively a bounce-back from Fish's comments, made at the Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference in Connecticut last month. When liberal blogs picked up the story that McCain had moved to the left on wiretapping, the McCain campaign issued a letter insisting that he still supported unconditional immunity, as well as new rules that would expand the nation's spy powers.
The campaign's response was consistent with McCain's past positions and votes. But it riled Andrew McCarthy at the conservative National Review Online, who read the campaign's position as a disavowal of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, and a wimpy surrender of executive power to Congress.
"What does it mean when he says Sen. McCain does not want the telecoms put into this position again?" McCarthy asked. "Is he saying that in a time of national crisis, the president should not be permitted to ask the telecoms for assistance that is arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute?"'

That's when the campaign issued the letter explaining McCain's new views of executive power, and revealing that McCain would, in certain future circumstances, rely on the same theory of executive power in wartime.

A spokesperson for McCain's camp did not respond to a request Monday for an explanation of the difference between the new policy and the December interview.

More "straight talk", huh? :rolleyes:

Those who say the Dems threw away a sure thing by having a divisive primary campaign forget that McCain will be handing them all the ammo they need in the coming months.

For example:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=555712

McCain has to cater to a base that is in the minority on almost every issue due to eight years of poor executive leadership. From Iraq, to tax cuts, to civil liberties...it's clear that McCain is indeed a "third term"

You will find most real conservatives oppose McCain on this issue.

More "straight talk", huh? :rolleyes:

Those who say the Dems threw away a sure thing by having a divisive primary campaign forget that McCain will be handing them all the ammo they need in the coming months.

McCain has to cater to a base that is in the minority on almost every issue due to eight years of poor executive leadership. From Iraq, to tax cuts, to civil liberties...it's clear that McCain is indeed a "third term"


He can't even please the dual cores of his own party without alienating the other or making him sound like a two-faced jackal. Poor guy. :p

You will find most real conservatives oppose McCain on this issue.

That won't stop most of them from voting for him anyways...

That won't stop most of them from voting for him anyways...

I'm sure a lot of people will vote for them because OMG OBAMA IS WORSE, but for a lot of people, it's wearing thin. There's no enthusiasm - and that means less donations, and less turnout. And it's likely, IMO, 2-3% of the voters will vote for Barr and throw the victory to Obama.

Screw it, if I was President of the US, I'd secretly spy on everyone as well, if just for laughs.

"Hey, VP, check out this guy in Montana dealing with customer service, it's hysterical!"

Lol, Chuck Fish is a real name?

I can't help but wonder what happened to McCain. I used to really respect the man.

I can't help but wonder what happened to McCain. I used to really respect the man.

Me too...I would have voted for him in 2000 if he'd been the Republican nominee.

Lol, Chuck Fish is a real name?

It seems to be so.:p

Next he'll be making congress sign an enabling act. :rolleyes: OH MY FUCKING GOD A FUCKING GODWIN JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

I can't help but wonder what happened to McCain. I used to really respect the man.
Sold out to the neocons. Which these days is political sucide.

*giggles at TLA for no immeidately apparent reason*

You will find most real conservatives oppose McCain on this issue.
Yep. All people that appreciate living in a free society should oppose him vigorously on this topic. It was one of the few things Nazz and I ever agreed on.

Yep. All people that appreciate living in a free society should oppose him vigorously on this topic. It was one of the few things Nazz and I ever agreed on.

You and Nazz agreed? I roll against illusion at +5 and successfully disbelieve this.

Me too...I would have voted for him in 2000 if he'd been the Republican nominee.
I actually DID vote for him in 2000 (the Michigan primary that year happened after Gore was already a lock on the Dem side, so I crossed over).

Wait a moment here:

[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]

Let me understand and make sure I got this straight. Did he basically say, that pretty much everyone understands that these actions were constitutional, except for the constitutional lawyers?

Does this strike anyone as a little...odd? Basically saying that everybody knew it was constitutional...except for those people whose job it is to know what is constitutional.

Hey, EVERYBODY knows that hepatitis is perfectly fine for you! Well...you know, except for doctors

You and Nazz agreed? I roll against illusion at +5 and successfully disbelieve this.

:p I almost fell out of my chair.

You and Nazz agreed? I roll against illusion at +5 and successfully disbelieve this.

:p I almost fell out of my chair.
That was funny. I think we only agreed on two real policy things -- first was that warrantless wiretapping was unconscionable and the second was ... was ... Well, maybe there was no second.

Whatever happened to The Nazz?

That was funny. I think we only agreed on two real policy things -- first was that warrantless wiretapping was unconscionable and the second was ... was ... Well, maybe there was no second.

Heh. Maybe the sky being blue? Maybe? :D

Whatever happened to The Nazz?

Dropped off the face of the earth back in September.

I'm sure a lot of people will vote for them because OMG OBAMA IS WORSE...

And pray tell, what *is* Mr. Obama's position on spying on us? The last time the issue seriously came up (the reauthorization of the secret court law the measure was attached to), he didn't even bother to vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

as it says: "Obama (D-IL), Not Voting". (Yes, that's the right vote -- it's the link one of my senaturds sent to me while explaining why he "had to" vote for the damn thing.)

So, before you embrace Mr. Obama for supporting freedom, mom, and apple pie, you might wanna like, you know, make sure he actually supports 'em.

ObAdvocacy: Vote for me! I know I'd suck at the job, and I'm honest about it!

Meh, I've never liked McCain, and I can't say I'm surprised because the guy will say and do anything that will get him elected (or he thinks will get him elected).

And pray tell, what *is* Mr. Obama's position on spying on us? The last time the issue seriously came up (the reauthorization of the secret court law the measure was attached to), he didn't even bother to vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

as it says: "Obama (D-IL), Not Voting". (Yes, that's the right vote -- it's the link one of my senaturds sent to me while explaining why he "had to" vote for the damn thing.)

So, before you embrace Mr. Obama for supporting freedom, mom, and apple pie, you might wanna like, you know, make sure he actually supports 'em.

ObAdvocacy: Vote for me! I know I'd suck at the job, and I'm honest about it!
My main complaint about Obama is his dearth of official actions. Neither he, nor Clinton has done anything notable in the Senate. Missing a vote on a Rights issue is not a good thing.

I can't help but wonder what happened to McCain. I used to really respect the man.

i get the impression that after flirting with going independant in '01 and talking to the dems about caucusing with them fell through he decided to do whatever needed to be done to get the nomination when bush was out of office.

i hope that getting the nomination is enough vindication for him. he has so little integrity left that its hard to imagine how he can win the presidency.

And pray tell, what *is* Mr. Obama's position on spying on us? The last time the issue seriously came up (the reauthorization of the secret court law the measure was attached to), he didn't even bother to vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020

as it says: "Obama (D-IL), Not Voting". (Yes, that's the right vote -- it's the link one of my senaturds sent to me while explaining why he "had to" vote for the damn thing.)

So, before you embrace Mr. Obama for supporting freedom, mom, and apple pie, you might wanna like, you know, make sure he actually supports 'em.

ObAdvocacy: Vote for me! I know I'd suck at the job, and I'm honest about it!

Whether Obama is "for" or "against" something, depends on whether you catch him at it. For a while there, he was saying that Iran isn't a threat, and their funding of Hezbollah is not "supporting terrorism". Now that AIPAC support is on the hook, he's singing a tune opposite to his voting in the past, and his statements in the very recent past.

He did the same thing about the troops in Iraq. At first, he was all for an immediate pullout, then an aide of his said, "he didn't mean immediate", and now he says he'll examine it when he gets into office, and make a decision then.

First he said he could never disown Rev Wright, then he did - couldn't leave his church - then he did.

Very slippery eel.

Wait a moment here:



Let me understand and make sure I got this straight. Did he basically say, that pretty much everyone understands that these actions were constitutional, except for the constitutional lawyers?

Does this strike anyone as a little...odd? Basically saying that everybody knew it was constitutional...except for those people whose job it is to know what is constitutional.

Hey, EVERYBODY knows that hepatitis is perfectly fine for you! Well...you know, except for doctors


Does it strike me as odd? Yes and no. I find it flabbergastingly stupid and blatantly wrong. However, I am not even remotely suprised they would say such a thing.

Wait a moment here:



Let me understand and make sure I got this straight. Did he basically say, that pretty much everyone understands that these actions were constitutional, except for the constitutional lawyers?

Does this strike anyone as a little...odd? Basically saying that everybody knew it was constitutional...except for those people whose job it is to know what is constitutional.

Hey, EVERYBODY knows that hepatitis is perfectly fine for you! Well...you know, except for doctors


Ignore those wacky physicists! Gravity is your bitch so jump off that scyscraper and fly!

Wait a moment here:



Let me understand and make sure I got this straight. Did he basically say, that pretty much everyone understands that these actions were constitutional, except for the constitutional lawyers?

Does this strike anyone as a little...odd? Basically saying that everybody knew it was constitutional...except for those people whose job it is to know what is constitutional.

Hey, EVERYBODY knows that hepatitis is perfectly fine for you! Well...you know, except for doctors

Yeah, pretty much. You know how those professionals are, always coming up with their theories and their evidence and their (blech) logic, when what's really important is what the leader feels like doing at the time.

Sometimes I wish that the presidential contenders would just give up pretending and run for Monarch instead. That's what people seem to want anyway.

I can't help but wonder what happened to McCain. I used to really respect the man.

Nothing, really. His positions now are the same ones he's always held. He had just managed to cultivate an image of being a maverick, mainly because he wasn't in the public eye as much.

That was funny. I think we only agreed on two real policy things -- first was that warrantless wiretapping was unconscionable and the second was ... was ... Well, maybe there was no second.

Maybe the second was that burning puppies alive with a flamethrower isn't very nice.

Yeah, I have nothing either.

Wait a moment here:



Let me understand and make sure I got this straight. Did he basically say, that pretty much everyone understands that these actions were constitutional, except for the constitutional lawyers?

Does this strike anyone as a little...odd? Basically saying that everybody knew it was constitutional...except for those people whose job it is to know what is constitutional.

Hey, EVERYBODY knows that hepatitis is perfectly fine for you! Well...you know, except for doctors

Ha. I didn't even notice that as I was skimming the article. Brilliant.

Well, ya know, he's old and senile. Even so, trying to understand it does make me want to :headbang:

Anyone who reads this article and still believes McCain to be a "maverick" or a "moderate" is likely to be a Bushevik praying to Gawd for Four More Years.

Yeah maybe McCain is 'moderate' in Bizarro world where the NSDAP respected democracy and civil rights, but in reality he's just Bush III.

The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush's longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war.

Ah! But curiously enough we are not in fact at war! :rolleyes:

Heck, if I was President I would do everything within my illegal powers to find out who LG is, and from there make my VP so that I might resign and give LG the Presidency for kicks and laughs.:D

You and Nazz agreed? I roll against illusion at +5 and successfully disbelieve this.

Haha!

Will saves. So often overlooked.

Whatever happened to The Nazz?

He swan dived into a diarrhea waterfall never to return.


Anyone remember the famous Nazz quote?

Haha!

Will saves. So often overlooked.

Especially since it's now a defense like your AC.

Especially since it's now a defense like your AC.

They're using MAC now?