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."

Parity

[jeiler]

Just for comparison, I'd like to see what Obama's views are on this issue. Anybody got a link?

and next comes....

[ohzero]

the response from the republican party that reads something like:

"Supporting article II doesn't necessarily infer that we're willing to arbitrarily wire tap Joe Citizen.."

and then of course, 3 more months go by, and everyone who is not considered a privacy advocate or a nutjob completely forgets about that they made this statement, the hundreds of others like it from this administration, and the blatant Orwellian nature of the country that we're living in.

Nothing is going to get resolved without a legislative body, preferably congress, stepping in and saying "no, article II does not mean that, and by the way we're burning the patriot act."

Dear Democrats, please win.

Thanks,

-a guy who likes to talk about guns on the phone, but poses zero threat to national security.

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 [paranoidlinux.org]

irc.freenode.net, #paranoidlinux

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]

this comes as a surprise?

[gadabyte]

be afraid of president mccain [reason.com] 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 [wikipedia.org] say about his respect for our freedoms?

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON.

Re:Parity

[Hyppy]

I'm relatively left-right moderate in my political views. It cost him my vote.

In Soviet Sweden...

[emilv]

In less than two weeks the Swedish government are going to vote for just this type of survelliance. If the propsed new law is implemented, they will connect new cables that will search through all data going over the border.

They can, in theory, read every e-mail going over the border.

Article I Makes Congress More Powerful

[Doc Ruby]

The Congress is not only essential to the government's power to do anything, it is actually the only indispensible branch. With a supermajority of voting members, Congress can not only write and pass laws, but can override a presidential veto, meaning the Executive branch is not required for making laws. The Executive is, however, required to enforce all acts passed by Congress, even if the president vetoed them - or just doesn't like them. But even if the Executive doesn't enforce the laws as it's required to, Congress has the power to try people for violating them, and to direct Federal (and Washington, DC) police to arrest and imprison them, including in a prison inside the Capitol building. If there is a "Unitary" branch in the Federal government, it's Congress, not the Executive.

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 [wikipedia.org] that defines Congress:

Section 8: The Congress shall have power

[...]

        To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

        To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

        To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

        To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

        To provide and maintain a navy;

        To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

        To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

        To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

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.

Re:Damnit, why did the USSR have to collapse?

[Sponge Bath]

...where do we send them to fight that?

I'm thinking Aruba, armed with gaudy print shirts and mai tais.
After all the shit they been through recently, they deserve a break.

Re:Clear as mud

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't much question that tapping *international* calls is within the government's power.

If it was international calls between parties not subject to US laws (e.g. foreign heads of state) then I'd agree with you - but how do you know, without oversight, that the US government isn't also listening in on US citizens abroad.

The one corner case is calls that cross the border. US customs could claim that such calls might be used to smuggle illegal information into or out of the USA.

Re:Damnit, why did the USSR have to collapse?

[Zymergy]

Don't count out Russia yet as a possible US foe... Most of the Nuclear fuel used by the US Navy currently comes from Russian Nuclear Weapons we purchase and reprocess. They could always choose another buyer...

The Boogie-Man that worries me: China ANGRY...
China will someday become Very Oil-Deprived, Over-Populated, Starving, and desperately needing to maintain their economy with the fruits of Oil. (this could very well happen...)

Realize we are in the middle of what Historians are already calling "The Oil Age".
Even the Big Oil Companies themselves are agreed that the halfway point of "Peak Oil" production is now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil [wikipedia.org]

The world economy is based on a substance (Oil) that yields 100x the energy used to extract it, and modify it, and market it.
There is NO alternative to Oil other than NUCLEAR that can compete on that ~100x cost/benefit yield concept. When it starts going very scarce wars will happen. This is the nature of man.
I am no expert, but me thinks the 'war in Iraq' and the over 12+ 'permanent' military bases being built there ( http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm [fcnl.org] ) and the 100+ Acre US Embassy ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/ [msn.com] ) are what I call "Prudent Planning".

Like it or not, the world as we know it is built on OIL.
I for one, am glad we have established a new good footing in the middle of old Babylon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon [wikipedia.org] ), because we are going to surely need it in the future when the oil wars REALLY get underway. (And in fact, the US presence being there will likely prevent larger wars and ensure that what wars do occur, will be as small as we can cause them to be. It's the big Picture.

McCain did volunteer and serve and sacrifice in our military for our country with honors during the Cold War.
He will bring to the presidential desk wisdom, knowledge, and experience which no other candidate can begin to claim they have in this election.
The next president Must understand how to lead our military and how utilize it to best protect our economy and people and mitigate larger wars that are very very likely when Oil runs out.

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.

Re:Parity

[Astro Dr Dave]

That's all well and good, but the ACLU only defends most of the freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights; they deride and ignore the 2nd amendment. And in regards to the 2nd amendment, Obama is very much anti-rights. I may vote for Obama anyway, with the hope that the Supreme Court will save the 2nd, and Obama as president may save the 4th...

Re:Damnit, why did the USSR have to collapse?

[oodaloop]

Regardless of what conservatives think, and regardless of the casualties SO FAR, Al Qaeda is in fact actively trying to build multiple nuclear weapons. We KNOW they have already acquired the weapons-grade uranium, and are simply working on the devices themselves and logistics. Care to guess what the casualties will be when they detonate one or more nuclear weapons in major cities in the U.S. and other western nations? I'm guessing more than lightning strikes.

Terrorism was a law enforcement issue under the Clinton administration, and it was a total disaster. We were not able to stop attacks, merely prosecute people after they already attacked. State sponsorship was not pursued in domestic terrorist attacks. Leads were lost. When it is a law enforcement issue, all we can do is arrest people when they break the law. When it is an intelligence issue (not military), we can track bad guys and stop attacks. This doesn't necessarily mean we use intrusive and warrantless measures. Most of these people are non-U.S. citizens to begin with.

In the case of the first WTC attack in 1993, state sponsorship was not pursued. Evidence the CIA needed to show links back to Iraq was held by the FBI as evidence in court and was unreleasable. Meanwhile, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who admitted to mixing chemicals for the bomb, fled back to Iraq using his Iraqi passport with the help of the Iraqi government. The Clinton administration did nothing. It's because of cases like this as well as 9/11 that terrorism became an intelligence matter vice a law enforcement matter in the Bush administration.

Re:Parity

[Anonymous Coward]

"... or you're doing it on such a large scale, getting court approval is not practical."

No. This is not speculation. Impracticality was argued by AG as the need for increasing the exemption from 72 hours to 2 weeks.

Turns out even that is not enough time. Now seeking yearly check-ins as to, "this is what we are doing," with no actual permission sought.

Re:radical Islamic moderates

[Anonymous Coward]

While 9/11 still needs lots and lots and lots of re-examination, I don't think it's fair to take the foxnewsbushgovernment version as the truth. So, do not ever use 9/11 as an excuse for wars, wiretapping or other stuff like that. No one really knows what happened that day and before we all do (which we probably won't) we should not jump to any conclusions and take actions based on them.

It is a big misconception, that the Middle East is pissed off by the US and other western countries, just because they exist. I here a lot of 'nuke em all' shouting coming from the US. Those are the ones that watch 20 minutes of FOX News everyday and make that a substitude for reality.

Anyway, the answer lies in more engagement, not more armour. If you bomb people and their friends and show a lot of disrespect, they won't like you. Same for countries. So: make nice. Don't take all the oil, don't invade countries for it under false pretences. It's time everybody realises we share a world. Everyone is entitled to their share of it. The nicer you are (don't mistake this for being a sissy), the safer you are.

Re:Parity

[Anonymous Coward]

And THAT'S what angered me so about the administrations assertion that they needed to bypass the FISA court. They pointed out that it usually took the FBI ~ six months to prepare a case for the court. ZOMG! by then the terrorists would have already struck. But when your success rate is that far North of 99% you have no idea what the courts minimum standard IS. For all they know, "I REEELY WANT TO" written in crayon on a coctail napkin would be enough. Especially post 9/11. Instead of submitting appications more quickly, with less preparation, they demanded executive authority to ignore the fourth ammendment.

Re:Parity

[Original Replica]

While it is very, very unlikely that the FISA court would leak a request for a wiretap, if the request were groundless/abusive enough, I suppose it is a possibility.

They shouldn't have to "leak" anything. There is no reason for warrants not to be public knowledge after they have been carried out or rejected. It should be a necessary monitor both of police/DHS actions and judicial competency. [stopthedrugwar.org]

McCain vs. the Constitution

[istartedi]

This is just all part of McCain's (and the now fallen Republican party's) disrespect for the Constitution. Some of the campaign finance stuff he proposed was very chilling--bloggers would have had to jump through hoops as if they were lobbying orgs, or they wouldn't be able to post political stuff. That struck at the very heart of the 1st ammendment. Then there's the flag burning issue. I swear, if McCain gets in, I'll burn a flag that very day. That he would be in favor of warrantless wiretaps is no surprise.

I hope Obama et. al. will take up the cause of the Constitution, and use it in their campaign ads. OTOH, a campaigning style that purports to educate people might not be well received. Obama is already being painted as an "intellectual elitist", which sounds GOOD to me; but unfortunately it doesn't sound good to the electorate at large. Just do the right thing this time, guys, and don't figure out how to lose like you did the last two times.