Has Sen. Kerry released anything regarding gov't spying yet? nt

[babylonsister]

[Mass]

1. Plenty

The last one I know of is during a CNN interview where he said he supported what Gore had said a few days ago.

[babylonsister]

2. Someone asked on another thread where's Kerry on this? I was

hoping to reassure he's got our back. :-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=309198&mesg_id=309297

[Mass]

4. Sorry, I must have hitten return by error.

Here is the CNN interview: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=146739&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

I cant find the This Week Interview where he spoke about that.

I am sure that otheres have a lot more.

[TayTay]

3. Take 'em in order: Dec 16th, 2005

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. I want to make clear that this vote was not about whether I support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--I do. This vote was about whether I thought that the significant and unnecessary invasions into the privacy rights of all Americans were necessary to protect our national security--I do not.

Last July, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. I supported that bipartisan, compromise bill. Even though it did not contain all the privacy protections I would have liked, it took a lot of steps towards improving the problems in the PATRIOT Act that have become evidence since its passage. If that bill was on the floor today, I would support it.

But it is not. What we do have on the floor is a conference report that fails to address some of the most serious problems with the PATRIOT Act. For example, its version of Section 215 allows the Government to obtain library, medical, gun records, and other sensitive personal information on a mere showing that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. That is it. Relevance is all that is required. The Senate bill, on the other hand would have established a three part test to determine whether the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This seemingly small change will help prevent investigations which invade the privacy of American citizens that may have no connection to any suspected terrorist or spy. This is an important restriction.

In addition, unlike the Senate bill the conference report provides no mechanism for the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge the accompanying automatic, permanent gag order. The FISA, Foreign Intelliegence Surveillance Act, court reviews are simply not sufficient. They have the power only to review the Government application for the underlying Section 215 order. They do not have the power to make an individualized determination about whether a gag order should accompany it. So the recipient of a Section 215 order is automatically silenced forever. How is that fair? How is that consistent with our democratic principles?

The conference report doesn't provide judicial review of National Security Letters either. The Senate bill did. Judicial review is one of our best checks on unnecessary Government intrusion into individual privacy. Why deny it to our citizens?

Lastly, I would like to mention the problem with the conference reports provisions on the so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants. Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not include any protections against these warrants. Rather than requiring that the government notify the target of these warrants within 7 days, as the Senate bill did, the conference report requires notification within 30 days of the search. Thirty days. That is an awfully long time to go before learning that you have been the subject of a Government search.

These are just a few of the problems with the conference report. They are the most significant problems. Those in support know that it is flawed, but they are creating artificial time pressure to force us to approve the bill, flawed as it may be.

I realize that 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire. I certainly do not want that to happen. But passing this conference report is not the only way to prevent their expiration. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to extend those provisions by three months to allow us time to fix the problems with the conference report. If that effort fails and the PATRIOT Act expires, the blame rests only with the White House and leadership that controls the House and the Senate. There was and remains a simple, unified way to get this done, and they rejected it.

There is no reason why we cannot be safe and free. The Senate bill accomplished this. And, I will keep working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that whatever legislation we ultimately pass to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act also accomplishes this.

[TayTay]

5. Jan 25, 2006 Objecting to Judge Alito to SCOTUS

This is part of a bigger speech, but it was a reason Sen. Kerry gave for opposing Judge Alito's appointment to the SCOTUS:

In that speech, Judge Alito ``preached the gospel'' of the Reagan administration's Justice Department, the theory of a unitary executive. And though in the hearings Judge Alito attempted to downplay the significance of this theory by saying it didn't address the scope of the power of the executive branch but, rather, addressed the question of who controls the executive branch, don't be fooled. The unitary executive theory has everything to do with the scope of Executive power.

In fact, even Stephen Calabresi, one of the fathers of the theory, has stated that ``he practical consequences of the theory are dramatic. It renders unconstitutional independent agencies and councils.'' That means that Congress would lose the power to protect public safety by creating agencies like the Consumer Products Commission, which ensures the safety of products on the marketplace, or the Securities and Exchange Commission which protects Americans from corporations such as Enron. And who would gain the power? The Executive, the President.

Carried to its logical end, the theory goes much further than simply invalidating independent agencies. The Bush administration has already used this theory to justify its illegal domestic spying program and its ability to torture detainees. The administration seems to view this theory as a blank check for Executive overreaching.

Judge Alito's endorsement of the unitary executive theory is not the only cause for concern. In 1986, while working at the Justice Department, he endorsed the idea that Presidential signing statements could be used to influence judicial interpretation of legislation. His premise was that the President's understanding of legislation is just as important in determining legislative intent as Congress's, which is absolutely startling when you look at the history of legislative intent and of the legislative branch itself. President Bush has taken the practice of issuing signing statements to an extraordinarily new level. Most recently, he used a signing statement to reserve the right to ignore the ban on torture that Congress overwhelmingly passed. He also used signing statements to attempt to apply the law restricting habeas corpus review of enemy combatants retroactively, despite our understanding in Congress that it would not affect cases pending before the Supreme Court at the time of passage.

The signing statements have been used to specifically negate or make an end run around very specific congressional intent. The implication of President Bush's signing statements are absolutely astounding. His administration is reserving the right to ignore those laws it doesn't like. Only one thing can hold this President accountable, and it is called the Supreme Court. Given Judge Alito's endorsement of the unitary executive and his consistent deference to government power, I don't think Judge Alito is prepared to be the kind of check we need. Reining in excessive government power matters more today to the average American than perhaps at any recent time in our memory, as we work to try to provide a balance between protecting our rights and our safety. As Justice O'Connor said: The war on terror is not a blank slate for government action. We can and must fight that in a manner consistent with our Constitution.

[TayTay]

6. Jan 27th, 2006 More on why Alito is a Bush today and a fascist

Now, if his judicial opinions and legal memoranda do not convince you of these things, you can take a look at the speech he gave to the Federalist Society in which, as a sitting judge, he ``preached the gospel'' of the Reagan Justice Department nearly 15 years after he left it; a speech in which he announced his support of the ``unitary executive theory'' on the grounds that it ``best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure.''

As Beth Nolan, former White House counsel to President Clinton, describes it:

"Unitary executive" is a small phrase with almost limitless import: At the very least, it embodies the concept of Presidential control over all Executive functions, including those that have traditionally been exercised by ``independent'' agencies and other actors not subject to the President's direct control. Under this meaning, Congress may not, by statute, insulate the Federal Reserve or the Federal Election Commission ..... from Presidential control.

Judge Alito believes you can.

The phrase is also used to embrace expansive interpretations of the President's substantive powers, and strong limits on the Legislative and Judicial branches. This is the apparent meaning of the phrase in many of this Administration's signing statements.

Now, most recently, one of those signing statements was used to preserve the President's right to just outright ignore the ban on torture that was passed overwhelmingly by the Congress. We had a long fight on this floor. I believe the vote was somewhere in the 90s, if I recall correctly. Ninety-something said this is the intent of Congress: to ban torture. But the President immediately turned around and did a signing in which he suggested an alternative interpretation. And Judge Alito has indicated his support for that Executive power.

During the hearings, Judge Alito attempted to convince the committee that the unitary executive theory is not about the scope of Presidential power. But that is just flat wrong. Not only does the theory read Executive power very broadly, but, by necessity, it reads congressional power very narrowly. In other words, as the President gains exclusive power over a matter, the Constitution withholds Congress's authority to regulate in that field. That is not, by any originalist interpretation, what the Founding Fathers intended.

Let me give you a real-life example, as described again by Beth Nolan:

When the Reagan Administration undertook the covert arms-for-hostages operation that eventually grew into the Iran-Contra scandal, it triggered the requirement of the National Security Act that the Administration provide Congress ``timely notification'' of the covert operation.

Reading the phrase ``timely notification'' against the background of the unitary executive theory, the Justice Department stated, ``The President's authority to act in the field of international relations is plenary, exclusive, and subject to no legal limitations save those derived from the applicable provisions of the Constitution itself.''

According to Justice, under that interpretation, Congress's role in this matter was limited because its only constitutional powers in the area of foreign affairs were those that directly involved the exercise of legal authority over American citizens. Justice even qualified this statement, saying that by ``American citizens'' it meant ``the private citizenry'' and not the President or other executive officials.

According to Ms. Nolan:

If such claims are taken seriously, then the President is largely impervious to statutory law in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and war, and Congress is effectively powerless to act as a constraint against presidential aggrandizement in these areas.

Does that sound familiar? It ought to sound familiar. The Bush administration's legal opinion on torture, the administration's response to the McCain antitorture amendment, and the justifications given for the NSA's domestic spying program have all been based, in large part, on this exact same theory of the unitary executive.

Given Judge Alito's history in the Reagan Justice Department, given his writings on the Third Circuit, given the year 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, a central question is whether you can trust that he, in fact, is going to protect the rights of the Congress and the legislative branch as well as those personal freedoms of individual Americans from those governmental intrusions?

I believe the record says "no."

[babylonsister]

7. Thanks, Mass and Tay Tay. I knew JK had said something.

The info is out there FWIW.
And I came to the right place! :toast:

[karynnj]

8. Kerry also spoke about it

on the Bill Press show (Dec 21), Ed Shultz (Dec 21), and Bender (AAR) on Christmas - per our threads he made the point that it was illegal and that Bush could have gone to the FISA courts to get approval.

[kerrygoddess]

9. Here's more from the Dem Daily

There's 2 Search tools on the Dem Daily, one on the side bar and a Google Search that let's you search within the blog. There's not much JK has said about anything since the end of July, that is not posted on the Dem Daily.

Here's a few links to references to the NSA spying from JK:

John Kerry Nails Bush: President Fails to Explain Why He’s Above the Law
January 23rd, 2006 @ 4:34 pm

"One of the few things I enjoyed hearing in Judge Alito’s confirmation hearings was his statement that no one, not even the President, is above the law. If only the man who nominated him for the Supreme Court took those words to heart. Today the president spoke for nearly two hours, but failed to explain why he considers himself above the law. The president has yet explain why the secret FISA courts are not good enough or fast enough, or tell Congress what changes need to be made in the law. It’s time for a real investigation to get to the truth."

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1724

A One - Two Punch from Kerry and Harman Leads the Dem’s Fight on Bush’s Domestic Spying
January 23rd, 2006 @ 9:13 am
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1720

John Kerry Calls for Independent Counsel to Investigate Bush Warrentless Wiretaps
January 22nd, 2006 @ 9:08 am

John Kerry was on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, this morning. He spoke against Bush’s warrantless wiretaps, calling them “a clear violation of the law.”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1715

John Kerry on The Situation Room from Jerusalem
January 17th, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1680

[ProSense]

10. Please see this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2437650&mesg_id=2437650

[rox63]

11. Just gave you a K&R n/t

[ProSense]

12. Thanks Rox. n/t

[ProSense]

13. After everything Kerry has said about this

What does the left-leaning press do? They critize Kerry and the entire Democratic Party as supporting spying on Americans:

snip...

But the administration knows it can score points because there is no opposition within mainstream politics willing to challenge it on the "war on terror." After complaining about Bush's failure to get rubber-stamp approval for the wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, the Democrats' last presidential candidate, John Kerry, nevertheless assured the New York Times, "We all support surveillance."

Kerry is right about the Democratic Party supporting surveillance--in its current Bush Lite phase, and throughout its history--but public opinion runs the other way.

http://www.counterpunch.org/maass02042006.html

Here's a good article the difference between legal foreign surveillance and illegal domestic spying on the FISA to counter the BS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2438389

[MH1]

14. Counterpunch.... so "left" it's right. They support Nader and

hate Democrats. Republicans and other right-wingers also supported Nader. Hmmmm...

In any case, Kerry DOES support spying on Americans - with a warrant. Kinda like we expect the police to do when a crime is suspected. And just what "public opinion" showed in the cited survey, despite the author's spin, well actually, lie.

Eh, no point trying to make sense of anything posted at Counterpunch. It's sad so many DU'ers seem to like it.

[ProSense]

15. He does not!

This is not about wiretapping known criminal as the police would do with drug dealers. This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It does not allow spying on Americans. That is why Bush broke the law. Bush is engaged in braod-based spying on Americans.

[MH1]

16. Okay...let me rephrase...or perhaps I misunderstand FISA.

I thought that FISA did give authority to wiretap, even if one end of the connection is domestic (i.e. Americans) - but the point is that going to FISA means they have to justify it.

So, a terrorist is just another kind of criminal, afaic. If a known bomb-maker for Hamas is repeatedly calling a number in Florida that belongs to an American professor, I don't have a problem with a warrant being issued to wiretap that American professor, for a limited duration to determine the nature of the relationship and see if wrongdoing is being committed. Because in this case as described, there is evidence, and the evidence has been presented to a court - there is a record of what is done.

My understanding is that JK supports this use of wiretaps. I have no problem with that. It is somewhat inflammatory to call it "spying on Americans" but it is not incorrect. The difference is that a warrant has been issued, unlike what Bush is doing which is warrantless spying on Americans. Which basically is Bush saying, "I can do whatever I want, whenever I want, regardless of what laws Congress passes, because as preznit I am above the law." And to THAT both I and JK say BULLSHIT. (Although JK is more politically correct about it). And I am fine with that being JK's position, including the warranted wiretapping of Americans.

[karynnj]

17. It's the typical Rep attempt to say there is no daylight between Kerry's

position and theirs. There is a huge difference. Kerry is for legal wire tapping where a court gives approval. He obviously requested warrants from courts back when he was a prosecutor. Buah wants unlimited permission to spy on anyone he wants.

[MH1]

20. Exactly. n/t

[ProSense]

18. I think the second point is correct, but here is an explanation

from the link in previous post:

Myth 1: Following existing law would require the NSA to turn off a wiretap of an Al Qaeda member calling in to the United States.

Variations on this theme appear every time the Administration defends the NSA spying program. The suggestion is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would interfere with the President's ability to monitor Al Qaeda members' calls when it's most important to do so. There's only one problem: FISA would not require the tap to be turned off. First, FISA does not apply at all to wiretaps targeted at foreign nationals abroad. Its restrictions are triggered only when the surveillance is targeted at a citizen or permanent resident of the United States, or when the surveillance is obtained from a wiretap physically located within the United States. If the NSA is listening in on an Al Qaeda member's phone in Pakistan, nothing in FISA requires it to stop listening if that person calls someone in the United States. Second, even when FISA is triggered, it does not require the wiretap to be turned off but merely to be approved by a judge, based on a showing of probable cause that the target is a member of a terrorist organization. Such judicial approval may be obtained after the wiretap is put in place, so long as it is approved within seventy-two hours.

Accordingly, the two situations that allow listening to continue involve calls originating overseas from a suspected terrorist and probable cause, which requires a warrant within 72 hours. And still these must meet FISA laws. Bush isn't following any of these rules, and the spying is being conducted sweepingly on America soil.


Details here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

[MH1]

19. Okay, got it...

my example wouldn't necessarily even trigger FISA. But, same idea if instead of the evidence involving calls, there was some other evidence saying the American belonged to a terrorist organization, then FISA could be used to get a warrant for wiretapping that American...even sometime after the fact.

Either way, I say you can call that "spying on Americans"....or more appropriately, warranted surveillance....and JK is supporting that, as long as a warrant is involved.

I think we agree. :-)

But, I think the phrase "spying on Americans" implies different things to different people, and some people take that as warrantless - i.e. what Bush is doing - and that is exactly what our unfriendly neighborhood Counterpunch writer was trying to achieve.