Well, earlier in the week the presumptive Republican nominee was said to be more emphatic about the legality of warrantless wiretapping.
(The source article from the NYT also has some history about the Senator's position of several months ago, which seemed a lot more thoughtful - plus it contained this gem:)
Mr. McCain believes that "neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001," Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.
But by Friday, the Senator himself spoke with less certainty...
From an appearance in Florida, Carrie Dann reported this:
The question of whether or not President Bush overstepped his constitutional power by authorizing warrantless checks of Americans' international communications after 9/11 is "ambiguous," McCain said yesterday. But, he added, he hopes not to dwell on the issue.
"It's ambiguous as to whether the president acted within his authority or not," McCain told reporters at a press conference in the Florida Everglades yesterday.
(I think I would've preferred a clear "No, he didn't!"... maybe even a "Maybe, or maybe not - we're still hashing that one out and we'll get back to you", which could be seen as indecisive but not unambigious.)
Is the constitutional argument really that unclear?
McCain, who believes that they should not face such penalties, called for the quick passage of that legislation, saying of the wiretapping debate that "the whole issue can be resolved by passing the FISA bill."
Resolved. Uh. Sure, many issues could be resolved by sweeping, draconian action...
Never mind what's best, so long as it's "effective" !?
Holtz-Eakin wrote in a letter to the National Review that Sen. McCain believes that the president did not overreach when he empowered the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls and emails without issuing warrants after 9/11.
(See above.)
Sooooo - a "top adviser" says Sen. McCain "believes that the president did not overreach" - but "[i]t's ambiguous as to whether the president acted within his authority or not" ?!
And whatever happened to erring on the side of caution?
If ambiguity is present (as it usually is) wouldn't it be wise to lean toward the choice that permits less harm?
Will our leaders ever overcome their inability to think beyond the short-term?
"So, there's ambiguity about it," he [McCain] later added. "Let's move forward."
Say dat.
I'm looking forward to the arrival of an executive branch that doesn't choose to avoid contemplating potentially criminal acts that have occurred, whether or not they're ambiguous.