TresSugar

Bush White House: We Don't Need Sweeping Pardons

CitizenSugar — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:30:56 -0800

The Bush administration has signaled that it won't be necessary to issue pardons for officials involved in harsh interrogation, even while the incoming Obama administration won't rule out an investigation. White House officials believe that legal opinions written by the Justice Department clear interrogators of any wrongdoing.

In September, Joe Biden said that the Obama administration would pursue appropriate charges against Bush officials not out of vengeance, but out of the need to preserve the notion that no one is above the law.

If Bush grants a blanket pardon to top officials, the public (and history) might consider it an admission that criminal activity plagued his presidency. Even so, do you expect to see preemptive pardons, for crimes such as torture or illegal wiretapping, before Bush leaves office?

Source

FISA: Does It Mean - For Illegal Surveillance Act?

LibertySugar — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:30:53 -0700

Yesterday the Senate voted to revamp government surveillance powers and grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies, thus ending all pending lawsuits filed to uncover the extent that Bush and the telecoms violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants. Bush unsucessfuly tried to pass a similar bill under a Republican congress, but finally got what he wanted from the Democrats.

To the surprise of many, Barack Obama voted for the bill while Hillary Clinton opposed it. (John McCain was not there to vote.)

In a statement on her vote, Hillary explained:

In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct.

Obama's base is inconsolable about its candidate's vote for the bill. Obama explained his rationale directly to his online supporters. To see what he wrote, read more.

Obama wrote:

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention - once I'm sworn in as president - to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

If President Bush seized powers beyond his reach, should the citizens be allowed to assert their constitutional rights in court, or should responsibility be political rather than legal? I hope there is some accountability for any illegal violation of civil liberties, as even Americans with nothing to hide should fear a government that can use private information to manipulate those innocent American representatives, journalists, activists, and dissenters working on their behalf.

Just Like US! Europe Deals with Wiretapping and Immigration

LibertySugar — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:03:27 -0700

Americans hear a lot about immigration and warrantless wiretapping, thanks to this presidential election; but Europe deals with these issues as well.

Sweden, upon fresh approval from parliament, will now allow its intelligence agency to spy on internationally bound emails, phone calls, and faxes (people still fax?) without a warrant. Outraged critics compare Sweden's new plan to the actions of China, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

Moving on to all of Europe, and its immigration problem, the EU just passed legislation that allows governments to detain undocumented migrants for as many as 18 months, and ban them from EU territory for five years upon release.

Despite the intention to find decent minimum standards for migrants while maintaining a tough-on-illegals image, human rights groups criticize the law as severely flawed. The EU had the difficult task of forming a united immigration policy. France's current detention limit is 32 days, Germany's 18 months, and still other members have no limit.

Do Sweden's actions suggest that governments have a need to spy without a warrant, or a sign that the world needs new moral leadership? Should EU standards be a compromise or an aspiration? Is it possible to compromise human rights?

Source

McCain on Warrantless Wiretapping: Where Does He Stand?

LibertySugar — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:30:00 -0700

McCain believes President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is legal, according to one of McCain's top advisers. Bush justifies the program based on an unprecedented assertion of executive power, sure to be a legacy of his administration. McCain now appears to embrace this interpretation.

In a letter to the National Review McCain-insider Douglas Holtz-Eakin, wrote:

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

Going back in time, I found that in January 2006, McCain told Fox News that he was against the spying program. When asked by Mike Wallace whether Bush had the authority to engage in warrantless wiretapping, McCain said:

You know, I don’t think so, but why not come to Congress? We can sort this all out. I don’t think - I know of no member of Congress, frankly, who, if the administration came and said here’s why we need this capability, that they wouldn’t get it. And so let’s have the hearings.

For a further look, read more.

The NY Times also reports that just six months ago, McCain opposed the Bush view he seems to endorse now.

I'm not sure how McCain's recent tendency to turn towards the Republican base, and away from his previous distaste for Bush's surveillance and interrogation tactics will play out. Must McCain adopt Bush's unique constitutional theory to relay his tough-on-terrorism message? Where do you hope John McCain stands on this issue?

Source