McCain: I Love Illegal Spying

I'm not really sure how this fits into Jonathan Rauch's idea that John McCain is a Burkean conservative:

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.

That sounds more like a Bush conservative to me, full of casual disregard for the law, eager to trample on people's rights, etc.

Comments

McCain probably thinks he can be trusted with powers that would problematic in Bush's hands or anyone else.

McCain's a good guy - We've met him and like him a lot - But he is not so bright in the areas that he thinks he knows about.

McCain will tell his pals in the liberal media: "trust me - I'm not Bush."

That may work.

Posted by Comment | June 4, 2008 11:19 AM

Sounds exactly like a Burkean conservative to me. Warrantless wiretapping is now a tradition afterall! A Burkean is a conservative who has no other fig leaf to cover him trying to enrich the rich and strengthen the state.

Posted by Rob | June 4, 2008 11:25 AM

His argument would make more sense if congress had actually declared war at some point. It's not much of a stretch to assume that these wartime powers would be active any time that US forces are engaged in combat somewhere.

Posted by daveNYC | June 4, 2008 11:26 AM

You know, you would think the most upsetting thing about this would be the possible continuation of the Bush administration's warrentless wiretapping escapades, but I think the more serious issue here is that the McCain campaign is more insane than Terry McAuliffe. What sort of campaign admits that, if elected, they're probably going to spy on you? People foolish enough to admit that should never be trusted to run a country.

Posted by John | June 4, 2008 11:42 AM

Burkean conservatism means following the Constitution, which is what McCain is doing.

Posted by Al | June 4, 2008 11:43 AM

Many citizens have the view "If you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to hide so why do you care?" I've met them, debated them, they're impervious to persuasion it's a constitutional issue. It's as if they advocate the abolition of the 4th amendment. Actually when discussions I've had get down to the point they want to move on to something more trivial that is their fallback position. Yes, they say, maybe it is an unnecessary amendment in light of our current dilemma as to how to combat terrorism. I don't feel this is a winning fight to pick if you're trolling for swing votes. Down deep honest, law abiding people are willing to have their phones tapped, their files rummaged through and their DNA and fingerprints stored if the trade-off is a perceived decrease in the odds of falling victim to terrorism. How to counter such a mindset I don't know. Obama needs to roll back these personal invasions once in office and at the same time finesse downplaying them during the campaign. Republicans have the upper hand with many people that all but feel willing to live in glass houses if that's what it takes to stave off the marauding, godless Muslim hordes.

Posted by steve duncan | June 4, 2008 11:45 AM

Down deep honest, law abiding people are willing to have their phones tapped, their files rummaged through and their DNA and fingerprints stored if the trade-off is a perceived decrease in the odds of falling victim to terrorism. How to counter such a mindset I don't know.

I quote Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death!" But since these conservatives are, deep down, fundamentally anti-American an appeal to our Founding Fathers doesn't really work that well on them.

Posted by Stefan | June 4, 2008 11:54 AM

John -

To add to what steve duncan says, American people don't believe that John McCain is going to spy on "them." Such a thing could never happen to "them." Only to that other guy - you know, the liberal who hates America and wants to see the terrorists win. People who would support McCain after hearing that statement are happy to let McCain spy on those traitors, but never in their wildest dreams think it would ever happen to "them."

It's sad.

Posted by Trigger | June 4, 2008 11:56 AM

Interestingly, I think this is one of those issues where even if McCain's position enjoyed majority support (and it usually depends on how you ask the question), he could lose more marginal voters anyway. That is because I think the people who actually care enough about this issue for it to be determinative AND who are marginal voters in a McCain-Obama contest are most likely to be libertarian-minded folks.

Oh, and for the record: the Constitution makes it quite clear that Congress has the power to regulate these matters, wartime or not, and the relevant Supreme Court cases support the same conclusion. So while the Fourth Amendment issues can be somewhat tricky, the idea that anything in the Constitution would allow McCain to ignore relevant federal statutes on these matters is simply an absurdity.

Posted by DTM | June 4, 2008 12:24 PM

"Oh, and for the record: the Constitution makes it quite clear that Congress has the power to regulate these matters, wartime or not, and the relevant Supreme Court cases support the same conclusion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course if you have a President that is willing to do as he damn well pleases, order others to do what he wants and in the final analysis is immune to legal sanctions due to a cowering legislative branch and in-his-pocket SCOTUS then the 4th Amendment is moot. Constitution or no Constitution. Even lacking a compliant Congress and Court Bush can just pardon everyone landing in hot water over illegal violations, including himself. So, can the average citizen depend on the Constitution and the 4th Amendment to secure their privacy? No. A President McCain would so demonize anyone pushing back on surveillance activities portrayed as necessary to combat terrorism they'd shrink from any ultimate showdown. Just as they have given in to Bush. Yes, yes, yes, Congress is holding hearings and making noises about this being a pea under their mattress. So what, it hasn't stopped.

Posted by steve duncan | June 4, 2008 12:39 PM

"If you haven't done anything wrong then you have nothing to hide so why do you care?"

I've had this argument with my batshit crazy Republican former boss. There is really no countering it. Even suggesting that President Obama or Clinton would reserve the same powers didn't help. I think it comes down to a compulsive need to be bossed around and controlled. This same person has literally told me that the American people should not know about secret prisons, torture, etc. That he is fine with an opaque government. It makes me want to scream.

Posted by drjimcooper | June 4, 2008 12:55 PM

steve duncan,

Indeed, if you have a President willing to break the law, and a Congress nonetheless unwilling to impeach him and remove him from office, you end up in a situation with no Constitutional remedy.

Posted by DTM | June 4, 2008 1:03 PM

McCain's current statement totally makes sense in light of his and Bush's idea that we are at war in Iraq as opposed to an occupation. Hell, they would probably try to use the justification that the War on Terror is enough to spy on Americans. Its too bad "Terror" is not an actual country. If it were, we might have a chance of actually "defeating" it, whatever that means.

Posted by Adrock | June 4, 2008 1:09 PM

0 for 2, Al.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 4, 2008 1:16 PM

The BBC reports:
A new intelligence law brought in by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez allows security forces to gather evidence through surveillance methods such as wiretapping without obtaining a court order, and authorities can withhold evidence from defence lawyers if it is considered to be in the interest of national security.

>>The parallels to u.s. activity are not wasted on observers there.

BBC: Carlos Correa, a leader of the Venezuelan human rights group Provea, compared the law to the Patriot Act in the United States, which gave US law enforcement agencies greater powers to intercept communications and investigate suspected terrorists on American soil in the wake of the attacks on 11 September 2001.

>>>then the irony alert:

BBC: Mr Chavez - who called the US Patriot Act a "dictatorial law" - denied the Venezuelan law would threaten freedoms, saying it falls into "a framework of great respect for human rights".

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 4, 2008 3:36 PM