John McCain on Homeland Security Republican Sr Senator (AZ

Sub-sections under Homeland Security:
• Defense Spending
• Torture
• Voting Record
• Other issues under Homeland Security

Waterboarding is torture; we're not going to torture people

ROMNEY: I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.

McCAIN: I am astonished that Mitt would think such a torture would be inflicted on anyone who we held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law. If we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people. It's clear the definition of torture. [Waterboarding] is in violation of laws we have passed.

Waterboarding is torture; & as A.G., Mukasey will declare it

A: Mukasey said that he believes that the president does not have the authority to violate existing law concerning treatment of prisoners. That means clearly that waterboarding is illegal. He also has said that he finds waterboarding repugnant. I have written him saying then there is no doubt that once you get briefed then you will declare waterboarding as torture. And so I am confident that he will declare that practice illegal, and therefore I will vote to support his nomination.

Q: You yourself say there is no doubt about it, waterboarding is torture.

A: It is torture. There's no doubt about it. Mr. Mukasey will get briefed on the specific procedures that are being used. And I have every anticipation that he will say that it's illegal and that it is torture.

Consult lawyers on war decisions; no half-cocked war basis

MCCAIN: Because I don't think that's the time to call in the lawyers, when we're in a national security crisis. Those are the last people I'd call in. I'd call in my wisdom, my knowledge, my background, my experience, and my ability to lead this nation.

ROMNEY: I want to make one thing very, very clear, and that is if there were ever a question of a security threat to this country, I would act immediately to protect the interests of America and our citizens. No question about that. But every president has of course met with White House counsel and they have written opinions about the involvement of Congress. The decision to take our men and women to war is the most grave decision and I would do that on a very deliberate and careful basis, not a half-cocked basis.

Ran the largest squadron in the US Navy

A: I've run the largest squadron in the US Navy, and I didn't run it, I led it. It was tens of millions of dollars of assets, training brave young Americans to go fight and defend the country. I'll defend my leadership of 1,000-men and -women organization with the management of anything that anybody else has done.

After 9/11, ask Americans to join military or AmeriCorps

A: I would have asked Americans, when Americans were ready to serve a cause greater than themselves, I would have told them, first of all, consider the military; also the Peace Corps, also AmeriCorps, also neighborhood watches, also volunteer organizations that we would form up all over America. That way we would all serve this nation.

Let loose smart, tough spies to catch Bin Laden

A: I would establish an organization not unlike the OSS in World War II. People who are smart, people who are tough; people who are used to operating independently, and the smartest and most talented people I know. And I would let them loose, and I'd say find this guy and do whatever is necessary to get him.

I've spent my life leading on national security issues

A: I've spent my life in national security issues. I've taken unpopular stance because I knew what was right. Back in 2003, amid criticism from my fellow Republicans, I spoke strongly against the Rumsfeld strategy, which I knew was doomed to failure and cause so much needless sacrifice. I advocated very strongly the new strategy that some Democrats have called the McCain strategy--which it is not. And I believe that this strategy is winning. I know the conflict. I know war. I have seen war. I know how the military works. I know how the government works. I understand national security. I was once the commanding officer of the largest squadron in the US Navy. I didn't manage it. I led it.

Torture supported only by people without military experience

McCAIN: It was interesting during the debate on torture, retired military, from Colin Powell on down, and others, sided with me. Those who had no military experience took the other side. [The military consensus is that] any information that we may gain through the use of torture can never, ever be counterbalanced by the damage it does to America's reputation

Radical Islamic extremism is a hydra-headed challenge

Torture is ineffective as interrogation & for world opinion

A: That is a million-to-one scenario. But I would take that responsibility [to authorize aggressive interrogations. However,] we could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us as we underwent torture, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know. We have procedures for interrogation, adequate in 999,999 [out of a million] cases, and if we agree to torture people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

Close Guantanamo Bay prison; announce no-torture policy

A: I would probably announce the closing of Guantanamo Bay. I would move those detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I would announce we will not torture anyone. I would announce that climate change is a big issue, because we've got some image problems in the world. Clearly, in the area of "propaganda," in the area of the war of ideas, we are not winning--well, in some ways we are behind. Al-Jazeera and others maybe, in my view--may sometimes do a better job than we are. At the end of the day, it's how people make up their minds as to whether they want to embrace our values, our standards, our ideals, or whether they want to go the path of radical Islamic extremism, which is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in.

Torture has never worked throughout history

A: If you torture someone, they're going to tell you anything they think you want to know. It is an affront to everything we stand for and believe in. Every retired military officer, everybody who's been in war doesn't want to torture people and think that it's the wrong thing to do. And history shows that. We cannot torture people & maintain our moral superiority in the world.

Q: But George Tenet says...

A: I don't care what George Tenet says. I know what's right. I know what's morally right as far as America's behavior.

Q: But Tenet says we saved live through some of these techniques...

A: I don't accept that fundamental thesis, because it's never worked throughout history. That's just a fundamental fact. We've gotten a huge amount of misinformation from these techniques

We must provide our children a strong, better country

A lack of complacency shouldn't provoke a lack of confidence

We don't have as much to fear as we had in the past

Those who gave their lives deserve to be remembered

“Rogue state rollback” avoids use of US troops

Disagrees with Perot: No more POWs in Vietnam

Both McCain and Perot remained active in POW matters after the war. But over time they found themselves at opposite ends of the most important issue: Whether American servicemen were still being held in Southeast Asia. Through the early 1990s, Perot insisted that government officials had ignored evidence of servicemen still in captivity, while McCain doubted a conspiracy occurred and believed much evidence of prisoner sightings was discredited. Perot [was accused of] the rash pursuit of conspiracy theories, while McCain became angered by people he thought were creating false hopes that missing servicemen were still alive. Their disagreement led to sharp words at a Senate committee hearing in 1992.

Accepts gays in military under current policy

McCAIN: No, I will not. [I agree when] military leaders that you and I respect say that this policy is a good one. I will support the present policy.

Military’s political leaders need military backgrounds

Women have proven themselves in combat-no restrictions

Bombing useless targets in Vietnam destroyed US morale

Vietnam was a worthy cause despite losing

Pres. needs experience more than briefing books

Discard ABM Treaty and develop a missile defense

Use force, with US control, only for vital interests

Clean up waste in defense acquisition

A: Line-item veto is the best tool. We need it very badly. There are a whole variety of programs that need to be cut, & I would start in cleaning up defense acquisition. The cost overruns associated with the purchase of our weapons systems is completely out of control. There's a $160 million combat ship that is now $400 million. We've got to get that under control first. Let's stop the pork- barrel spending; then we'll go at programs.

Eliminate defense pork, but increase most other defense

Indicate your priorities for defense spending:
• Greatly Increase: Intelligence operations; Pay for active duty personnel; Programs to improve troop retention rates; Troop and equipment readiness
• Slightly Increase: Armed Forces personnel training; Military hardware; Modernization of weaponry and equipment; National missile defense; Research and development of new weapons
• Eliminate: Defense pork barrel projects

Terminate C-130, B-2, and Seawolf; use funds to modernize

Politicians keep unneeded bases open for political purposes

Keep health care promises to aging veterans

$6.4B of military spending waste is a disgrace

Raise military pay to avoid military draft

Military personnel on food stamps is a national disgrace

Europeans should spend more on defense, within NATO

Hiding torture is wrong, and harms US credibility abroad

A: I do not know. But the actions were absolutely wrong. I'm glad that the attorney general is going to investigate it. This harms the credibility and the moral standing of America in the world, again. There will be skepticism and cynicism all over the world about how we treat prisoners and whether we practice torture or not.

Q: The CIA director says the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of the officers involved in the interrogation. Do you buy that?

A: We certainly want to do everything we can to protect the identities of those in the CIA. But he was advised not to [destroy the tapes] b several people, including high-ranking members of the administration. We're also setting up a false argument here between torture & moral high ground. That doesn't have to be. We have to keep the moral high ground. We can do it without torturing people.

Keep “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy - it works

Voted NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. HAGEL: The war in Iraq has pushed the US Army to the breaking point. When we deploy our military, we have an obligation to ensure that our troops are rested, ready, prepared, fully trained, and fully equipped. Today's Armed Forces are being deployed repeatedly for increasing periods of time. This is quickly wearing down the troops and their families, impacting the mental and physical health of our troops. Further, these deployments are affecting the recruiting and retention rates of the military. For example, the Army reached only a little over 80% of its recruiting goal for June. This is the second month in a row that the Army has failed to recruit the number of new soldiers needed to fill the ranks. And this is with $1 billion in large cash bonus incentives.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. KYL: Time in theater and dwell times should be a goal, rather than an absolute fixed requirement that becomes the policy of the US military determined by congressional action. By mandating a certain policy for deployment time or dwell time, the Congress is engaged in the most explicit micromanaging of what is obviously a function for the Commander in Chief and military commanders to perform. This is not something Members of Congress are knowledgeable about or would have the ability to dictate in any responsible fashion. It also would be unconstitutional. Clearly, the dwell times of troops or the amount of time in theater is an obligation of the Commander in Chief, not something for the Congress to determine.

Voted NO on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. GRAHAM [recommending NO]: The fundamental question for the Senate to answer when it comes to determining enemy combatant status is, Who should make that determination? Should that be a military decision or should it be a judicial decision? That is something our military should do.

Sen. SPECTER [recommending YES]: My amendment would retain the constitutional right of habeas corpus for people detained at Guantanamo. The right of habeas corpus was established in the Magna Carta in 1215 when, in England, there was action taken against King John to establish a procedure to prevent illegal detention. What the bill seeks to do is to set back basic rights by some 900 years. This amendment would strike that provision and make certain that the constitutional right of habeas corpus is maintained.

GRAHAM: Do we really want enemy prisoners to bring every lawsuit known to man against the people fighting the war and protecting us? No enemy prisoner should have access to Federal courts--a noncitizen, enemy combatant terrorist--to bring a lawsuit against those fighting on our behalf. No judge should have the ability to make a decision that has been historically reserved to the military. That does not make us safer.

SPECTER: The US Constitution states that "Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." We do not have either rebellion or invasion, so it is a little hard for me to see, as a basic principle of constitutional law, how the Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court does say in the next round of legal appeals there is a constitutional right to habeas corpus by those detained at Guantanamo Bay, then Sen. Specter is absolutely right.

Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

I question the need for a very lengthy, detailed report every 3 months. We will probably see those reports leaked to the press.

This amendment would spread out for the world--and especially for al-Qaida and its related organizations--precisely what interrogation techniques are going to be used.

If we lay out, in an unclassified version, a description of the techniques by the Attorney General, that description will be in al-Qaida and Hezbollah and all of the other terrorist organizations' playbook. They will train their assets that: This is what you must be expected to do, and Allah wants you to resist these techniques.

We are passing this bill so that we can detain people. If we catch someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, we have no way to hold him, no way to ask him the questions and get the information we need, because the uncertainty has brought the program to a close. It is vitally important to our security, and unfortunately this amendment would imperil it.

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.

Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
• Some may see the vote we are about to have as relatively trivial. They are mistaken. While the bill we are voting on makes only minor cosmetic changes to the PATRIOT Act, it will allow supporting the PATRIOT Act conference report that was blocked in December. Cosmetic changes simply don't cut it when we are talking about protecting the rights and freedoms of Americans from unnecessarily intrusive Government powers.
• The White House has tried to make life uncomfortable for Senators. It has suggested they are soft on terrorism, that they don't understand the pressing threat facing this country, that they are stuck in a pre-9/11 mindset. Those attacks should be rejected.
• We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act and we should not be ratifying that power grab today. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report is flawed. S. 2271 pretends to fix it but I don't think anyone is fooled, least of all our constituents.
• Because the Republican leadership obstructed efforts to improve the bill, the "police state" provisions regarding gag orders remain uncorrected. The Senate should get down to the serious business of legislating real fixes to the PATRIOT Act. Reference: USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments; Bill S. 2271 ; vote number 2006-025 on Mar 1, 2006

  Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

  Vote to invoke cloture on a conference report that extends the authority of the FBI to conduct "roving wiretaps" and access business records. Voting YES would recommend, in effect, that the PATRIOT Act be extended through December 31, 2009, and would makes the provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent. Voting NO would extend debate further, which would have the effect of NOT extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. Reference: Motion for Cloture of PATRIOT Act; Bill HR 3199 ; vote number 2005-358 on Dec 16, 2005

  Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism.

  Vote to adopt an amendment that makes US businesses and their subsidiaries liable to prosecution for dealing with foreign businesses which have links to terrorism or whose parent country supports terrorism. Voting YES would:
  • Empower the President under the Trading with the Enemy Act to prohibit US businesses and their subsidiaries from transacting with foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism.
  • Forbid US businesses and their subsidiaries from engaging in transactions with any foreign business whose parent country has been identified as a supporter of international terrorism.
  • Require the President to publish a list of foreign businesses identified as having links to terrorism, and bans US ownership or control of foreign businesses engaged in transactions with such businesses.
  • Call for US businesses to disclose in their annual reports any ownership stake of at least 10% in a foreign business that is itself engaging in transactions with a proscribed foreign business.
  Reference: Stop Business with Terrorists Act of 2005; Bill S AMDT 1351 to S 1042 ; vote number 2005-203 on Jul 26, 2005

  Voted NO on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders.

  Amendment intended to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents. Reference: State Homeland Security Grant Program Amendment; Bill S AMDT 220 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-64 on Mar 17, 2005

  Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

  Adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would ban nuclear weapons testing six months after ratification by the 44 nations that have nuclear power plants or nucelar research reactors.
  Status: Resolution of Ratification Rejected Y)48; N)51; P)1 Reference: Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; Bill Treaty Document #105-28 ; vote number 1999-325 on Oct 13, 1999

  Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.

  Vote on an amendment to allow one round of military base closures beginning in 2001 as determined by an independent panel. Reference: Bill S.1059 ; vote number 1999-147 on May 26, 1999

  Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels.

  The Kerrey (D-NE) amdt would strike bill language requiring that U.S. strategic nuclear forces remain at START I levels through the end of fiscal 2000 unless Russia ratified START II.
  Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)56; N)44 Reference: Motion to table Kerrey Amdt #395; Bill S. 1059 ; vote number 1999-149 on May 26, 1999

  Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP.

  Vote that the policy of the US is to deploy a National Missile Defense system capable of defending against limited ballistic missile attack as soon as it is technologically possible, and to seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. Reference: Bill S 257 ; vote number 1999-51 on Mar 17, 1999

  Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%.

  Vote to pass a bill to authorize a military pay raise of 4.8% in 2000 and annual pay increases through 2006 of 0.5% above the inflation rate. The bill would also provide additional incentives to certain enlisted personnel who remain on active duty. Reference: Bill S.4 ; vote number 1999-26 on Feb 24, 1999

  Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training.

  Byrd Amdt (D-WV) that would prohibit same-sex military barracks and basic training.
  Status: Amdt Rejected Y)39; N)53; NV)8 Reference: Byrd Amdt #3011; Bill S. 2057 ; vote number 1998-180 on Jun 25, 1998

  Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects.

  Overturning line-item vetoes of 36 military projects vetoed by President Clinton.
  Status: Bill Passed Y)69; N)30; NV)1 Reference: Line Item Veto Cancellation bill; Bill S. 1292 ; vote number 1997-287 on Oct 30, 1997

  Voted YES on banning chemical weapons.

  Approval of the chemical weapons ban.
  Status: Resolution of Ratification Agreed to Y)74; N)26 Reference: Resolution of ratification of the Chemical (Comprehensive) Weapons (Convention) Ban; Bill S. Res. 75 ; vote number 1997-51 on Apr 24, 1997

  Voted YES on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty.

  Vote to consider establishing a policy requiring the deployment of a national missile defense system by the end of 2003. The bill would also urge discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow deployment of the system. Reference: Bill S 1635 ; vote number 1996-157 on Jun 4, 1996

  Voted NO on 1996 Defense Appropriations.

  Approval of the 1996 Defense Appropriations bill.
  Status: Bill Passed Y)62; N)35; NV)3 Reference: Defense Approps Bill FY 96; Bill S. 1087 ; vote number 1995-397 on Sep 5, 1995

  Federalize aviation security.

  McCain sponsored the Aviation Security Act
  Establishes the Transportation Security Administration, including:
  • civil aviation security, and related research and development activities;
  • day-to-day Federal security screening operations for passenger air transportation and intrastate air transportation;
  • policies, strategies, and plans for dealing with threats to transportation;
  • domestic transportation during a national emergency, including aviation, rail, and other surface transportation
  • management of security information, including notifying airport or airline security officers of the identity of individuals known to pose a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.
  H.R. 2951 is the corresponding House bill. Became Public Law No: 107-71. Source: Bill sponsored by 31 Senators and 25 Reps 01-S1447 on Sep 21, 2001

  Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record.

  McCain scores 0% by SANE on peace issues

  Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

  • That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
  • That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
  • That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.
  As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. For what the US will spend on Missile Defense in one year we could: put over a million children through Head Start OR provide healthcare for over 3.5 million children OR create over 100,000 units of affordable housing OR hire over 160,000 elementary school teachers. At Peace Action our priorities are clear.

  The ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

  Source: SANE website 03n-SANE on Dec 31, 2003

  Innovate intelligence-gathering for future hard targets.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Human Intelligence: Conclusion 1

  Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a hard target for human intelligence, but it will not be the last that we face. When faced with such targets in the future, the United States needs to supplement its traditional methodologies with more innovative approaches.

  Conclusion 2

  Rewarding CIA and DIA case officers based on how many assets they recruit impedes the recruitment of quality assets.

  Conclusion 3

  The CIA, and even more so the DIA, must do a better job of testing the veracity of crucial human sources.

  Conclusion 4

  Iraq's denial and deception efforts successfully hampered U.S. intelligence collection.

  Conclusion 5

  In the case of Iraq, collectors of intelligence absorbed the prevailing analytic consensus and tended to reject or ignore contrary information. The result was "tunnel vision" focusing on the Intelligence Community's existing assumptions. Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.158-162 05-WMD-07 on Mar 31, 2005

  Assessments of al Qaida in Afghanistan in 2001 were accurate.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan: Summary & Findings

  The Commission compared the Intelligence Community's assessment of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons in Afghanistan before and after Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S.-led invasion of October 2001. We believe that the Intelligence Community correctly assessed al-Qa'ida's limited ability to use these weapons to inflict mass casualties. However, the war in Afghanistan and its aftermath revealed important new information about the level and direction of chemical, biological, and nuclear research and development that was underway. Specifically, we found that:
  • The Intelligence Community concluded that at the time of the commencement of the war in Afghanistan, al-Qa'ida's biological weapons program was both more advanced and more sophisticated than analysts had previously assessed;
  • Analytic judgments regarding al-Qa'ida's chemical weapons capabilities did not change significantly as a result of the war;
  • The Community appears to have been correct in its assessment of the low probability that al-Qa'ida had built a nuclear device or obtained sufficient material for a nuclear weapon. However, the war in Afghanistan brought to light detailed and revealing information about the direction and progress of al-Qa'ida's radiological and nuclear ambitions;
  • Intelligence gaps prior to the war in Afghanistan prevented the Intelligence Community from being able to assess with much certainty the extent or specific nature of al-Qa'ida's weapons of mass destruction capabilities;
  • Analysis of al-Qa'ida's potential development of weapons of mass destruction in Afghanistan did not benefit from leveraging different analytic disciplines; and
  • Analysts writing on al-Qa'ida's potential weapons of mass destruction efforts in Afghanistan did not adequately or explicitly state the basis for or the assumptions underlying their most critical judgments.
  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.267 05-WMD-11 on Mar 31, 2005

  CIA needs more focus on counterterrorism.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  TERRORISM: MANAGING TODAY'S THREAT: Summary & Findings

  As part of the Commission's charter to assess whether the Intelligence Community is properly postured to support the U.S. government's efforts to respond to the threats of the 21st century, we reviewed the progress the Intelligence Community has made in strengthening its counterterrorism capabilities since the September 11 attacks. We found that, although the Community has made significant strides in configuring itself to better protect the homeland and take the fight to terrorists abroad, much remains to be done to ensure the efficient use of limited resources among agencies responsible for counterterrorism intelligence. The U.S. government has not yet successfully defined the roles, missions, authorities, and the means of sharing information among our national and homeland security organs. Specifically, we found that:
  • Information flow between the federal, state, local, and tribal levels--both up and down--is not yet well coordinated;
  • Ambiguities in the respective roles and authorities of the National Counterterrorism Center and the Intelligence Community-wide Counterterrorist Center have not been resolved;
  • Persistent conflicts over the roles, missions, and authorities of counterterrorism organizations may limit the Community's ability to warn of potential threats;
  • Confusion and conflict regarding the roles, missions, and authorities of counterterrorism organizations have led to redundant efforts across the Community and inefficient use of limited resources; and
  • The failure to manage counterterrorism resources from a Community perspective has limited the Intelligence Community's ability to understand and warn against terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction.
  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.279 05-WMD-12 on Mar 31, 2005

  So-called Legal Issues are myths; not real CIA hindrances.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  Throughout our work we came across Intelligence Community leaders, operators, and analysts who claimed that they couldn't do their jobs because of a "legal issue." These "legal issues" arose in a variety of contexts, ranging from the Intelligence Community's dealings with U.S. persons to the legality of certain covert actions. And although there are, of course, very real (and necessary) legal restrictions on the Intelligence Community, quite often the cited legal impediments ended up being either myths that overcautious lawyers had never debunked or policy choices swathed in pseudo-legal justifications. Needless to say, such confusion about what the law actually requires can seriously hinder the Intelligence Community's ability to be proactive and innovative. Moreover, over time, it can breed uncertainty about real legal prohibitions.

  We believe this problem is the result of several factors, but for present purposes we note two. First, in the past there has not been a sizable legal staff that focused on Community issues. As a result, many Community problems were addressed through ad hoc , interagency task forces that tended to gravitate toward lowest common denominator solutions that were based on consensus and allowed action to be stalled by the doubts of the most cautious legal shop. Second, many rules and regulations governing the Intelligence Community have existed for decades with little thought given to the legal basis for the rules, or whether circumstances have changed the rules' applicability. Under such circumstances, it is unsurprising that legal "myths" have evolved.

  The recent creation of a DNI General Counsel's office will increase the probability that Community legal issues are addressed more seriously. By creating such an office, the DNI will help ensure that the Intelligence Community is fully able to confront the many real--and imaginary--legal issues that will arise.

  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.335 05-WMD-14 on Mar 31, 2005

  Intelligence community shares information poorly.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  While the imperative to improve information sharing within and beyond the Intelligence Community is widely acknowledged, it is too infrequently noted that the Intelligence Community--and the new DNI--have an additional responsibility that is often in tension with the first: the need to protect intelligence sources and methods. What therefore is needed--and what is largely absent from today's Intelligence Community--are structures and processes for sharing intelligence information that are driven by commonly accepted principles of risk management.

  Concern about security in a narrow sense should not crowd out actions to ensure national security in the larger sense. Sometimes--indeed, often--the right answer will be to limit access to information because of security concerns; but collection agencies, which for perfectly understandable bureaucratic reasons may systematically undervalue the need to share information, should not make this decision.

  The term information "sharing" suggests that the federal government entity that collects the information "owns" it and can decide whether or not to "share" it with others. This concept is deeply embedded in the Intelligence Community's culture. We reject it. Information collected by the Intelligence Community--or for that matter, any government agency--belongs to the U.S. government. Officials are fiduciaries who hold the information in trust for the nation. They do not have authority to withhold or distribute it except as such authority is delegated by the President or provided by law. The Director of National Intelligence could take an important, symbolic first step toward changing the Intelligence Community's culture by jettisoning the term "information sharing" itself--perhaps in favor of the term "information integration" or "information access." But as the term "information sharing" has become common parlance, we use it to avoid confusion.

  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.429-430 05-WMD-15 on Mar 31, 2005

  CIA should work more with scientists to understand WMDs.

  McCain signed the Report of the Commission on Intelligence on WMDs:

  The threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons proliferation has transformed over the past two decades. The technical expertise required to produce these weapons has become increasingly widespread, while many of the materials needed to make them are widely available on the open market. Meanwhile, terrorists have expressed a growing demand for these weapons and demonstrated their willingness to use them. The Intelligence Community has not kept pace with these events.

  Rather than attempt a top-to-bottom assessment of the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons threat, here we focus on relatively new aspects of the threat that present specific intelligence challenges, and that--in our view--require additional Intelligence Community reforms beyond those discussed in our other chapters. We recommend that:
  • The DNI take several specific measures aimed at better collaboration between the intelligence and biological science communities;
  • The National Counter Proliferation Center develop and ensure the implementation of a comprehensive biological weapons targeting strategy. This entails gaining real-time access to non-traditional information sources; filtering open source data; and devising specific collection initiatives directed at the resulting targets;
  • Intelligence Community, along with other relevant government bodies, support a more effective framework to interdict shipments of chemical, biological, and nuclear proliferation concern; and
  • The Intelligence Community better leverage existing legal and regulatory mechanisms to improve collection and analysis on chemical, biological, and nuclear threats.
  Source: Report to the President on WMDs, p.501 05-WMD-16 on Mar 31, 2005

  Click here for 6 older quotations from John McCain on Homeland Security. Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security. Click here for SenateMatch answers by John McCain. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Homeland Security in The Forum. Click here for a summary of John McCain's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other AZ politicians.
  Other candidates on Homeland Security:		John McCain on other issues:
  AZ Gubernatorial: Janet Napolitano AZ Senatorial: Jim Pederson Jon Kyl Republican Presidential: Sen.Sam Brownback Chmn.John Cox Rep.Newt Gingrich Mayor Rudy Giuliani Gov.Mike Huckabee Rep.Duncan Hunter Sen.John McCain Rep.Ron Paul Gov.Mitt Romney Rep.Tom Tancredo Sen.Fred Thompson Gov.Tommy Thompson Democratic Presidential: Sen.Joe Biden Sen.Hillary Clinton Sen.Chris Dodd Sen.John Edwards V.P.Al Gore Sen.Mike Gravel Rep.Dennis Kucinich Sen.Barack Obama Gov.Bill Richardson	2006 Senate Races: (AZ)Kyl v.Pederson (CA)Feinstein v.Mountjoy (CT)Lieberman v.Lamont v.Schlesinger (DE)Carper v.Ting (FL)Nelson v.Harris (HI)Akaka v.Thielen (IN)Lugar v.Osborn (MA)Kennedy v.Chase (MD)Cardin v.Steele v.Zeese (ME)Snowe v.Bright (MI)Stabenow v.Bouchard (MN)Kennedy v.Klobuchar (MO)Talent v.McCaskill (MS)Lott v.Fleming v.Bowlin (MT)Burns v.Tester (ND)Conrad v.Grotberg (NE)Nelson v.Ricketts (NJ)Menendez v.Kean (NM)Bingaman v.McCulloch (NV)Ensign v.Carter (NY)Clinton v.Spencer (OH)DeWine vBrown (PA)Santorum v.Casey (RI)Chafee vWhitehouse (TN)Ford v.Corker (TX)Hutchison v.Radnofsky (UT)Hatch v.Ashdown (VA)Allen v.Webb (VT)Sanders v.Tarrant (WA)Cantwell v.McGavick v.Guthrie (WI)Kohl v.Vogeler v.Redick (WV)Byrd v.Raese (WY)Thomas v.Groutage	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators House of Representatives SenateMatch (matching quiz) HouseMatch Senate Votes (analysis) House Votes