18 ms·

Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President

169 points by clusterbits 12y ago

clusterbits 12y ago
It almost sounds too good to be true.
- lettergram 12y ago
  Given he was one of the Senators forcing the government shutdown based on values, I suspect he is one of the more honest politicians. That being said, an honest politician... It's almost like we need another word other than politician.
  - saryant 12y ago
    The word is statesmen, few qualify for it.
  - Rapzid 12y ago
    This wasn't so many years ago.. Wasn't just about everything that group was doing, or not doing, around that time an attempt to sabotage the POTUS? I mean, that did happen didn't it?
    - jebblue 12y ago
      They were trying to keep POTUS from sabotaging the United Stated of America. That is what they were doing.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    Hey, if you can't get your way through voting, take the country hostage...
- meepmorp 12y ago
  Well, he has effectively zero chance of becoming president, so it is kinda too good to be true.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    Isn't that what they said about Barack Obama?
    - cowsandmilk 12y ago
      no... Barack Obama was viewed as a major contender for the Democratic Party nomination from the beginning of the primaries. He and Hillary were the only two candidates that had raised over $20MM in the first 3 months of 2007. So, 19 months before the election, the two serious democratic candidates had already taken the lead. In January 2008, Obama won 3 of the 4 first primaries, and tied with Hillary in the 4th. Rand Paul is viewed as following in his father's footsteps, who was never taken seriously by the national party. In his best performance in 2012, Ron Paul only won the primary in the US Virgin Islands.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        I distinctly recall a whole slew of pundits ready to hold a coronation for Hillary Clinton in 2007 prior to a single primary vote being cast. The Republican field is completely different, of course, but that's why Rand Paul could win. The "front runner" has less than 17% of the vote and there are less than ten percentage points between #1 and #7. Those are exactly the conditions under which a candidate who can differentiate himself can succeed by capturing the entirety of his own base while the base of the other camp is split between several different candidates.
      - tarikjn 12y ago
        > In his best performance in 2012, Ron Paul only won the primary in the US Virgin Islands. In the popular vote, true, but in number of delegates, once the counts were tallied, Ron Paul won Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Louisiana. Ron Paul also had a solid financial campaign in 2012, not the largest fund, but likely the best managed. his performance was in large part diminished by media bashing on the eve of any primary elections in which polls were in his favor. For example, see CNN's Gloria Borger interview cut, which was quite outrageous.
MichaelCrawford 12y ago
I understand that Rand Paul is heavily into the "rights" of corporations. Is that actually true? I personally am rather more worried about corporate surveillance than NSA surveillance. That's why I pay cash for everything, and take pains to blackhole web analytics servers with my hosts file.
- dmux 12y ago
  I agree if we're talking about a conglomerate, but how many individual corporations can coerce other corporations into handing over information?
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  Presumably Rand Paul, like many Republicans (and no small number of Democrats), accepts the idea that people can exercise their rights through government-registered entities which they own, called "corporations". These are entities without intrinsic rights, but a well-known intellectual framework called "corporate personhood" which dates back to some of our earliest jurisprudence in this nation says that you treat them like they do, because it is a good way to reason about their owners' use of their personal rights. (This theory also makes it trivially obvious why corporate "personhood" doesn't mean corporations get to do things like vote or get married -- using a corporation is not a way that to exercise that sort of right.) </factual description> <opinion> One may, of course, disagree that this is sound policy, but this opinion seems to be all-too-often presented in a manner which deliberately misunderstands / misrepresents the theory, perhaps in order to strengthen the invective language advocating against these policies. (Be sure to keep an eye on that, at least for the sake of your own intellectual honesty.)
  - jonah 12y ago
    My issue with this situation is that these corporations generally have orders-of-magnitude louder megaphones through which to exercise these rights. It really skews the one-person-one-vote ideal this democracy is built on. (Yes, individuals exercising an out-sized influence through money and access is a part of the same issue.) This is why things like Citizen's United and Super-PACs are so horribly distorting the functional workings of our country.
fuckyoujacques 12y ago
Rand Paul learned well from his father. He will say he'll do things that presidents can't actually do because a bunch of folks will send him cash for doing so. Ron Paul was an incredibly good marketer, first selling conspiracy newsletters and racist shit to kooks, then realizing that American libertarians are both wealthier and more gullible. Rand is v2.0 of that awful nonsense.
droopyEyelids 12y ago
Every country with an intelligence service is working as hard at spying on the Internet as the NSA. (Albeit with less funding.) I haven't heard a reasonable proposal to put that cat back into its bag, and without one Rand's statement sounds impractical and misguided, at best.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  > Albeit with less funding. Latvia deploy surveillance potato! You now scared!
- opo 12y ago
  Given that the NSA mass surveillance of American citizens have proven of little value in the fight against terrorism, I am surprised that you imply that this cannot be changed. A reasonable proposal is for ALL candidates to say that these programs are expensive, not useful and should be ended. (One might also say they are a blatant example of government overreach - but that is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.) It is not misguided to say that a bad program should be ended.
mbrownnyc 12y ago
Yep.
JulianMorrison 12y ago
The man is such a disaster in so many other ways, that getting one thing right is more of a half-cup of punch in a turd-bowl.
- meowface 12y ago
  I honestly think that between POTUS Rand Paul and NSA mass surveillance programs, the latter is the leser of two evils. It would be very nice to see other candidates making similar pledges though.
  - woah 12y ago
    No explanation in this comment either
    - mcantelon 12y ago
      People have been conditioned into thinking libertarians are the devil, basically.
      - opo 12y ago
        It might be more general than that. People here (and most other forums) seem conditioned to treat politics like sports teams and they will ignore all the horrible ideas their "team" has just as long as they can beat the other team. It is pretty sad...
        anonbanker 12y ago
        Can I use this explanation when Canadians ask me why I left the states? do I need to pay royalties?
    - adamnemecek 12y ago
      Explanation of what? Why Rand Paul would be a bad president?
    - 12y ago
jqm 12y ago
A politician pledging something? I'm sold. Sign me up!
zmanian 12y ago
One thing I'm confident in is that the further Rand Paul makes in the election process, the more discussion and awareness of mass surveillance's threat to democracy itself.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I remember when Ron Paul ran in the primaries, and in one of the first debates from 2011 I believe, they asked the Republican candidates whether they support a stronger Patriot Act or not. Like all the other 4 or 5 other candidates tried to out-match each other in how much stronger they would like the Patriot Act and other such laws to be. Ron Paul? He was the only one who said he would do away with it. Full stop. If only Rand Paul could reverse that majority of opinion this time in the debates, and force most candidates to say they'd also scale back on the mass surveillance, support repealing the Patriot, FISAA, EO12333, and possibly even pardon Snowden (probably even promising that in the campaign would be the best litmus test to see whether a candidate is actually serious about truly reforming the surveillance powers).
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > I believe, they asked the Republican candidates whether they support a stronger Patriot Act or not. Like all the other 4 or 5 other candidates tried to out-match each other in how much stronger they would like the Patriot Act and other such laws to be. It's worth thinking about the significance of that. These guys aren't doing it because it's wildly unpopular with voters.
    - DennisP 12y ago
      That's true but it's only GOP primary voters they were concerned about.
      - meepmorp 12y ago
        I think you're overestimating the degree to which the average US voter gives a shit about the Patriot Act (or NSA surveillance, for that matter). The response was red meat for the primary voters, sure, but it's not likely to be significant negative for the wider electorate.
gaigepr 12y ago
This seems like a slightly more plausible version of Newt Gingrich promising a moon colony if elected President. And by slightly more I mean something that he would most likely not fulfill once in office. All candidates promise big things to get elected and most of those things never happen.
lubos 12y ago
This is not surprising. Rand Paul, similar to his father Ron Paul, has very libertarian political views which means they prefer no government involvement, not just in the Internet but anywhere. This is not as good as it sounds. For example, he doesn't support FED in controlling money supply. But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. He doesn't like energy regulations and believes free market should dictate the energy prices. Too bad when California deregulated their energy market, the prices went up 10x in some cases due to market manipulations by Enron and similar. And then there is his religious agenda like anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriages, anti mandatory vaccination etc... Just because he supports one or two policies we like, doesn't make him good candidate overall. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.
- jfaucett 12y ago
  Some of you're statements about his political views appear to be false: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions) Its always nice to have a link when you make such claims :)
  - marincounty 12y ago
    "Paul, who is an ophthalmologist, also asserts that he's heard of cases where vaccines have caused "profound mental disorders." "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input." http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-effects/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-eff... I was kind of shocked when I heard a Ophthalmologist make such a pandering comment. He is a trained Doctor? I won't argue Libertinism on this site. I have a feeling this link will get more comments than when Paul Graham told us to be nice--essentially because we are jealous of successful people?
    - maratd 12y ago
      > I was kind of shocked What's so shocking about letting parents decide what medical treatment their children undergo? He has repeatedly said that parents should get their children vaccinated. And they should. Parents who don't are irresponsible, both socially and toward their children. However, should and must are two very different words. When you start talking about mandatory, you're talking about cops breaking down doors, taking children away, and vaccinating them by force. Is that what you support? That's sick.
xnull2guest 12y ago
I would be interested in understanding how he proposes to balance US national security interests with scaling back the NSAs capabilities and Total Information Awareness. I am aware (totally ;)) that Rand Paul is considered a bit of a 'dove' and in that way represents me and many other citizens very well. However, this dovish attitude failed to express itself before when it came to ISIS - just as it is likely to fail in the face of the Wolfowitz Doctrine - the primary US national security concern has been for the past 25 years that there should be no nation that grows mightily enough to challenge the United States. The defense industry is so bent on this doctrine, and the US allies and obligations so tangled up in it, it would take at least a full 8 years of effort to unravel. What's more, these absolutely radical changes to the United States would alter it inexorably (I'm not saying terribly) from its current state (perhaps closer to 1800's traditional America). Provided the current challenges to US power, a retirement of global bullying would seem to represent a peaceful option in the short term - but its exactly the sort of thing that causes long term defense strategists heart attacks. What's more - the NSA capabilities means are disjoint from their ends. I'm not sure whether Paul means to say that he would reverse the NSA's ends to apply their capabilities toward American citizens: thus ending surveillance - but then only by the same sort of policy that is represented by the FISA courts. He could possibly mean that he would scale back the NSA's means, but doing so would be absolutely untenable to anyone close to Washington especially as cyber is seen as one of the key weak areas of US defense. On this note does anyone know who would make up Rand's security council? Is he proposing to elect general doves? Overall, the statement that he would end surveillance means nothing. We need to know how he would propose to end it. What would it entail? What trade-offs are being made on interacting fronts? I applaud the lip service though. Even if it's bunk, let's hear some more promises to end mass surveillance. (I'd also like them to mention the DEA, FBI and other intelligence orgs - it ain't just NSA). Clinton?
researcher88 12y ago
If anyone is a threat to the Establishment, it is Rand Paul. He is not perfect but he can't be if he wants to win. He has a serious chance of getting the nomination and will help propel the conversation on surveillance reform and criminal justice reform. In another article, it said that he wants to eliminate jail time on all non-violent drug misdemeanors.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > If anyone is a threat to the Establishment, it is Rand Paul. He's not a threat to the part of the Establishment which wants government regulation rolled back so they can pollute and play games with energy prices.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
panarky 12y ago
It will be a mildly entertaining distraction to watch establishment politicians squirm with this issue. Will anyone really argue in favor of dragnet surveillance? But in the end it will be just that, a mildly entertaining distraction. Rand Paul has no chance, and even if he were to be elected President in a fluke, nothing much would change.
- quanticle 12y ago
  >Will anyone really argue in favor of dragnet surveillance? Absolutely. In fact, I'd expect them to argue in favor of dragnet surveillance, saying that it's necessary to prevent another 9/11.
zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
All presidential candidates make similar promises when they run, and then, when they get elected, they get exposed to the true reasons why most of these programs exist and they realize the reality is not as simple as it seemed from outside. And then, they perpetuate the status quo. Besides, I just can't stand libertarians who contradict their own positions saying that they want the government out of their lives except when it pertains to contraception, abortion, mandatory vaccinations and same-sex marriage.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  On this issue I think Rand Paul has been quite consistent. He was among only a handful of Senators against the FISA Amendments Act renewal from 2012, when he proposed a "4th amendment act" that would require a warrant for all data requests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyLlXBcbjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyLlXBcbjo https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/why-we-should-all-care-about-senates-vote-fisa-amendments-act-warrantless-domestic https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/why-we-should-all-care... He's been against the Patriot Act as well: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/rand-paul-vs-the-patriot-act/71323/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/rand-pau... He filibustered John Brennan's CIA nomination and the idea that the US government can assassinate an American with drones: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-john-brennan-cia-nominee-88507.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-j... And he supports abolishing the TSA: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0504/Sen.-Rand-Paul-knows-how-to-fix-the-TSA-end-it http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0504/Sen.... This guy has been preaching this stuff for years and voted like that as well. Obama on the other hand came out of nowhere, told us nice things we wanted to hear and then did a 180 when he became president. Oh, and just before he won his first mandate he voted for the Patriot Act's renewal while still in Senate - all while he was promoting an "end to illegal mass surveillance" in his campaign. I'm just saying, at least on this issue, he might be a little different than Obama. I would've still preferred his dad much more...but I'm not really seeing anyone fighting for this major issue. It's not a "privacy" issue...it's a liberty issue - I think that stuff used to be pretty important for Americans, no? I'm not seeing Elizabeth Warren, not seeing Bernie Sanders, nor Hillary Clinton pushing against the surveillance state from the Democratic side.
saboot 12y ago
I'm not in favor of a rand paul president, or even nominee. However I think it's great to at least have one candidate who can steer the conversation towards these issues. Hopefully he will go after candidates on the left and right about this.
encoderer 12y ago
Yeah, and Nixon had a secret plan to end the war. Twice.
- jebblue 12y ago
  The war that was started by the Democratic Party: http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/2-the-vietnam-war-top-10-mistakes-by-us-presidents/ http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/2-the-vietnam-war-top-10... "President John F. Kennedy had sent military advisors and then troops into South Vietnam. After Kennedy’s assassination, what to do about the Vietnam War became a pressing matter of business for the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson." From there see the VietNam War link: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628478/Vietnam-War http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628478/Vietnam-War "Accepting the de facto partition of Vietnam as unavoidable but still pledging to halt the spread of communism in Asia, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower began a crash program of assistance to the State of Vietnam—or South Vietnam, as it was invariably called. The Saigon Military Mission, a covert operation to conduct psychological warfare and paramilitary activities in South Vietnam, was launched on June 1, 1954"
  - mcphage 12y ago
    Oh, well in that case I'll definitely vote for Rand Paul.
  - Rapzid 12y ago
    Why does everything have to be about which party is at fault for what? That was a comment about one person's campaign promises.
  - encoderer 12y ago
    You way missed the point man. It's about campaign promises not the Vietnam war. Besides, Eisenhower was a republican.
hifier 12y ago
This is my litmus test for all future elections until this issue is resolved. There is and will never be a candidate that reflects all or even most of my positions. But, if a candidate is willing to unequivocally say that they will end domestic surveillance programs and uphold the 4th amendment, they will get my vote over anyone else who shows even the slightest hesitation, period.
- Lorento 12y ago
  Even over the candidate who promises to end the 2-party system? In other words, make real and lasting overall change, instead of just a single issue.
  - hifier 12y ago
    This is the single most important issue of the internet era. The current policy will erase the concept of privacy altogether. It is hardly "just a single issue".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kzhahou 12y ago
This is a sad reminder that the current president, who we were all so hopeful of, has the power to end this B.S. today.
- path411 11y ago
  Why would he revert his legacy? He has fought pretty hard for surveillance.
transfire 12y ago
Given the current field of candidates, it's pretty much Rand Paul or More-Of-The-Same. Seriously, Hillary is just Obama-term-three and Jeb... oh Lord, talk about scary.
- serf 12y ago
  as someone who vehemently hated Bush Jr, I am beginning to wonder which would ultimately be more dangerous and damaging to the states; the sneakily nefarious third term Obama cabinet which will say one thing and do the other while ignoring the people calling them out on it to gradually gain small amounts of power, or the recklessly irresponsible and blatant nature of the Bush cowboy genes and the power grabs that are so obvious that half of his own party disagrees. God, it makes me sick to my stomach to sound pro Bush. I promise I don't mean it that way.
T3RMINATED 12y ago
he already lost the Election with this Statement.
mehrzad 12y ago
Great, the man also wants to destroy public funding of science. I understand that that is his opinion, but well fuck that. I want to be a scientist and need REUs. Science is more important than capitalism. Capitalism has failed the world. edit: that last sentence was a bit much, I'll admit.
- donatj 12y ago
  Capitalism is the reason you are using the wonderful machine in front of you. Capitalism is the reason you have food. Capitalism is the reason you are not right now waiting in line for toilet paper. Capitalism has far from failed. Very little actual good and a lot of bad science has come from public funding.
  - mehrzad 12y ago
    >Very little actual good and a lot of bad science has come from public funding. Many, many private and public universities depend on federal grants to do the important research in every field. Perhaps what you say about capitalism is correct, but an increasingly automated society can probably do without it. Look up post-scarcity economics.
  - meepmorp 12y ago
    > Very little actual good and a lot of bad science has come from public funding. Are you serious?
  - sgift 12y ago
    > Capitalism is the reason you are using the wonderful machine in front of you. Capitalism is the reason you have food. Capitalism is the reason you are not right now waiting in line for toilet paper. Capitalism has far from failed. Correlation doesn't imply causation. That countries like Finland, Sweden etc. exist and do very well (in most metrics better than the USA), which use a system that most people in the US label "socialism" shows that there is not very much reason to believe that any of that was because of capitalism. It could very well be that despite capitalism all that happened. We will never know.
chucksmart 12y ago
Rand supporters can expect persecution.
vandeaq 12y ago
"The president created this vast dragnet by executive order." That's a remarkable simplification. Makes a good sound bite, but demonstrates, to me anyway, that he doesn't mean what he's saying. Falsifying the origin of a problem you claim to intend to fix puts that claim in quite a bit of doubt.
garduque 12y ago
"If elected." Right, so there you go.
simplemath 11y ago
Who gives a fuck, he's unelectable.

169 points by clusterbits 12y ago

clusterbits 12y ago

It almost sounds too good to be true.

lettergram 12y ago
Given he was one of the Senators forcing the government shutdown based on values, I suspect he is one of the more honest politicians. That being said, an honest politician... It's almost like we need another word other than politician.
- saryant 12y ago
  The word is statesmen, few qualify for it.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  This wasn't so many years ago.. Wasn't just about everything that group was doing, or not doing, around that time an attempt to sabotage the POTUS? I mean, that did happen didn't it?
  - jebblue 12y ago
    They were trying to keep POTUS from sabotaging the United Stated of America. That is what they were doing.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  Hey, if you can't get your way through voting, take the country hostage...
meepmorp 12y ago
Well, he has effectively zero chance of becoming president, so it is kinda too good to be true.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  Isn't that what they said about Barack Obama?
  - cowsandmilk 12y ago
    no... Barack Obama was viewed as a major contender for the Democratic Party nomination from the beginning of the primaries. He and Hillary were the only two candidates that had raised over $20MM in the first 3 months of 2007. So, 19 months before the election, the two serious democratic candidates had already taken the lead. In January 2008, Obama won 3 of the 4 first primaries, and tied with Hillary in the 4th. Rand Paul is viewed as following in his father's footsteps, who was never taken seriously by the national party. In his best performance in 2012, Ron Paul only won the primary in the US Virgin Islands.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      I distinctly recall a whole slew of pundits ready to hold a coronation for Hillary Clinton in 2007 prior to a single primary vote being cast. The Republican field is completely different, of course, but that's why Rand Paul could win. The "front runner" has less than 17% of the vote and there are less than ten percentage points between #1 and #7. Those are exactly the conditions under which a candidate who can differentiate himself can succeed by capturing the entirety of his own base while the base of the other camp is split between several different candidates.
    - tarikjn 12y ago
      > In his best performance in 2012, Ron Paul only won the primary in the US Virgin Islands. In the popular vote, true, but in number of delegates, once the counts were tallied, Ron Paul won Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Louisiana. Ron Paul also had a solid financial campaign in 2012, not the largest fund, but likely the best managed. his performance was in large part diminished by media bashing on the eve of any primary elections in which polls were in his favor. For example, see CNN's Gloria Borger interview cut, which was quite outrageous.

MichaelCrawford 12y ago

I understand that Rand Paul is heavily into the "rights" of corporations. Is that actually true? I personally am rather more worried about corporate surveillance than NSA surveillance. That's why I pay cash for everything, and take pains to blackhole web analytics servers with my hosts file.

dmux 12y ago
I agree if we're talking about a conglomerate, but how many individual corporations can coerce other corporations into handing over information?
fennecfoxen 12y ago
Presumably Rand Paul, like many Republicans (and no small number of Democrats), accepts the idea that people can exercise their rights through government-registered entities which they own, called "corporations". These are entities without intrinsic rights, but a well-known intellectual framework called "corporate personhood" which dates back to some of our earliest jurisprudence in this nation says that you treat them like they do, because it is a good way to reason about their owners' use of their personal rights. (This theory also makes it trivially obvious why corporate "personhood" doesn't mean corporations get to do things like vote or get married -- using a corporation is not a way that to exercise that sort of right.) </factual description> <opinion> One may, of course, disagree that this is sound policy, but this opinion seems to be all-too-often presented in a manner which deliberately misunderstands / misrepresents the theory, perhaps in order to strengthen the invective language advocating against these policies. (Be sure to keep an eye on that, at least for the sake of your own intellectual honesty.)
- jonah 12y ago
  My issue with this situation is that these corporations generally have orders-of-magnitude louder megaphones through which to exercise these rights. It really skews the one-person-one-vote ideal this democracy is built on. (Yes, individuals exercising an out-sized influence through money and access is a part of the same issue.) This is why things like Citizen's United and Super-PACs are so horribly distorting the functional workings of our country.

fuckyoujacques 12y ago

Rand Paul learned well from his father. He will say he'll do things that presidents can't actually do because a bunch of folks will send him cash for doing so. Ron Paul was an incredibly good marketer, first selling conspiracy newsletters and racist shit to kooks, then realizing that American libertarians are both wealthier and more gullible. Rand is v2.0 of that awful nonsense.

droopyEyelids 12y ago

Every country with an intelligence service is working as hard at spying on the Internet as the NSA. (Albeit with less funding.) I haven't heard a reasonable proposal to put that cat back into its bag, and without one Rand's statement sounds impractical and misguided, at best.

Zigurd 12y ago
> Albeit with less funding. Latvia deploy surveillance potato! You now scared!
opo 12y ago
Given that the NSA mass surveillance of American citizens have proven of little value in the fight against terrorism, I am surprised that you imply that this cannot be changed. A reasonable proposal is for ALL candidates to say that these programs are expensive, not useful and should be ended. (One might also say they are a blatant example of government overreach - but that is just my opinion and you are free to disagree.) It is not misguided to say that a bad program should be ended.

mbrownnyc 12y ago

Yep.

JulianMorrison 12y ago

The man is such a disaster in so many other ways, that getting one thing right is more of a half-cup of punch in a turd-bowl.

meowface 12y ago
I honestly think that between POTUS Rand Paul and NSA mass surveillance programs, the latter is the leser of two evils. It would be very nice to see other candidates making similar pledges though.
- woah 12y ago
  No explanation in this comment either
  - mcantelon 12y ago
    People have been conditioned into thinking libertarians are the devil, basically.
    - opo 12y ago
      It might be more general than that. People here (and most other forums) seem conditioned to treat politics like sports teams and they will ignore all the horrible ideas their "team" has just as long as they can beat the other team. It is pretty sad...
      - anonbanker 12y ago
        Can I use this explanation when Canadians ask me why I left the states? do I need to pay royalties?
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    Explanation of what? Why Rand Paul would be a bad president?
  - 12y ago

jqm 12y ago

A politician pledging something? I'm sold. Sign me up!

zmanian 12y ago

One thing I'm confident in is that the further Rand Paul makes in the election process, the more discussion and awareness of mass surveillance's threat to democracy itself.

higherpurpose 12y ago
I remember when Ron Paul ran in the primaries, and in one of the first debates from 2011 I believe, they asked the Republican candidates whether they support a stronger Patriot Act or not. Like all the other 4 or 5 other candidates tried to out-match each other in how much stronger they would like the Patriot Act and other such laws to be. Ron Paul? He was the only one who said he would do away with it. Full stop. If only Rand Paul could reverse that majority of opinion this time in the debates, and force most candidates to say they'd also scale back on the mass surveillance, support repealing the Patriot, FISAA, EO12333, and possibly even pardon Snowden (probably even promising that in the campaign would be the best litmus test to see whether a candidate is actually serious about truly reforming the surveillance powers).
- rayiner 12y ago
  > I believe, they asked the Republican candidates whether they support a stronger Patriot Act or not. Like all the other 4 or 5 other candidates tried to out-match each other in how much stronger they would like the Patriot Act and other such laws to be. It's worth thinking about the significance of that. These guys aren't doing it because it's wildly unpopular with voters.
  - DennisP 12y ago
    That's true but it's only GOP primary voters they were concerned about.
    - meepmorp 12y ago
      I think you're overestimating the degree to which the average US voter gives a shit about the Patriot Act (or NSA surveillance, for that matter). The response was red meat for the primary voters, sure, but it's not likely to be significant negative for the wider electorate.

gaigepr 12y ago

This seems like a slightly more plausible version of Newt Gingrich promising a moon colony if elected President. And by slightly more I mean something that he would most likely not fulfill once in office. All candidates promise big things to get elected and most of those things never happen.

lubos 12y ago

This is not surprising. Rand Paul, similar to his father Ron Paul, has very libertarian political views which means they prefer no government involvement, not just in the Internet but anywhere. This is not as good as it sounds. For example, he doesn't support FED in controlling money supply. But FED was instrumental in making USD the most stable currency in the last 100 years. He doesn't like energy regulations and believes free market should dictate the energy prices. Too bad when California deregulated their energy market, the prices went up 10x in some cases due to market manipulations by Enron and similar. And then there is his religious agenda like anti-abortion, anti same-sex marriages, anti mandatory vaccination etc... Just because he supports one or two policies we like, doesn't make him good candidate overall. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.

jfaucett 12y ago
Some of you're statements about his political views appear to be false: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Political_positions) Its always nice to have a link when you make such claims :)
- marincounty 12y ago
  "Paul, who is an ophthalmologist, also asserts that he's heard of cases where vaccines have caused "profound mental disorders." "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines," Paul said. "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing. But I think the parents should have some input." http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-effects/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/rand-paul-vaccine-eff... I was kind of shocked when I heard a Ophthalmologist make such a pandering comment. He is a trained Doctor? I won't argue Libertinism on this site. I have a feeling this link will get more comments than when Paul Graham told us to be nice--essentially because we are jealous of successful people?
  - maratd 12y ago
    > I was kind of shocked What's so shocking about letting parents decide what medical treatment their children undergo? He has repeatedly said that parents should get their children vaccinated. And they should. Parents who don't are irresponsible, both socially and toward their children. However, should and must are two very different words. When you start talking about mandatory, you're talking about cops breaking down doors, taking children away, and vaccinating them by force. Is that what you support? That's sick.

xnull2guest 12y ago

I would be interested in understanding how he proposes to balance US national security interests with scaling back the NSAs capabilities and Total Information Awareness. I am aware (totally ;)) that Rand Paul is considered a bit of a 'dove' and in that way represents me and many other citizens very well. However, this dovish attitude failed to express itself before when it came to ISIS - just as it is likely to fail in the face of the Wolfowitz Doctrine - the primary US national security concern has been for the past 25 years that there should be no nation that grows mightily enough to challenge the United States. The defense industry is so bent on this doctrine, and the US allies and obligations so tangled up in it, it would take at least a full 8 years of effort to unravel. What's more, these absolutely radical changes to the United States would alter it inexorably (I'm not saying terribly) from its current state (perhaps closer to 1800's traditional America). Provided the current challenges to US power, a retirement of global bullying would seem to represent a peaceful option in the short term - but its exactly the sort of thing that causes long term defense strategists heart attacks. What's more - the NSA capabilities means are disjoint from their ends. I'm not sure whether Paul means to say that he would reverse the NSA's ends to apply their capabilities toward American citizens: thus ending surveillance - but then only by the same sort of policy that is represented by the FISA courts. He could possibly mean that he would scale back the NSA's means, but doing so would be absolutely untenable to anyone close to Washington especially as cyber is seen as one of the key weak areas of US defense. On this note does anyone know who would make up Rand's security council? Is he proposing to elect general doves? Overall, the statement that he would end surveillance means nothing. We need to know how he would propose to end it. What would it entail? What trade-offs are being made on interacting fronts? I applaud the lip service though. Even if it's bunk, let's hear some more promises to end mass surveillance. (I'd also like them to mention the DEA, FBI and other intelligence orgs - it ain't just NSA). Clinton?

researcher88 12y ago

If anyone is a threat to the Establishment, it is Rand Paul. He is not perfect but he can't be if he wants to win. He has a serious chance of getting the nomination and will help propel the conversation on surveillance reform and criminal justice reform. In another article, it said that he wants to eliminate jail time on all non-violent drug misdemeanors.

cbd1984 12y ago
> If anyone is a threat to the Establishment, it is Rand Paul. He's not a threat to the part of the Establishment which wants government regulation rolled back so they can pollute and play games with energy prices.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

panarky 12y ago

It will be a mildly entertaining distraction to watch establishment politicians squirm with this issue. Will anyone really argue in favor of dragnet surveillance? But in the end it will be just that, a mildly entertaining distraction. Rand Paul has no chance, and even if he were to be elected President in a fluke, nothing much would change.

quanticle 12y ago
>Will anyone really argue in favor of dragnet surveillance? Absolutely. In fact, I'd expect them to argue in favor of dragnet surveillance, saying that it's necessary to prevent another 9/11.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago

All presidential candidates make similar promises when they run, and then, when they get elected, they get exposed to the true reasons why most of these programs exist and they realize the reality is not as simple as it seemed from outside. And then, they perpetuate the status quo. Besides, I just can't stand libertarians who contradict their own positions saying that they want the government out of their lives except when it pertains to contraception, abortion, mandatory vaccinations and same-sex marriage.

higherpurpose 12y ago
On this issue I think Rand Paul has been quite consistent. He was among only a handful of Senators against the FISA Amendments Act renewal from 2012, when he proposed a "4th amendment act" that would require a warrant for all data requests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyLlXBcbjo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyLlXBcbjo https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/why-we-should-all-care-about-senates-vote-fisa-amendments-act-warrantless-domestic https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/why-we-should-all-care... He's been against the Patriot Act as well: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/rand-paul-vs-the-patriot-act/71323/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/rand-pau... He filibustered John Brennan's CIA nomination and the idea that the US government can assassinate an American with drones: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-john-brennan-cia-nominee-88507.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-j... And he supports abolishing the TSA: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0504/Sen.-Rand-Paul-knows-how-to-fix-the-TSA-end-it http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0504/Sen.... This guy has been preaching this stuff for years and voted like that as well. Obama on the other hand came out of nowhere, told us nice things we wanted to hear and then did a 180 when he became president. Oh, and just before he won his first mandate he voted for the Patriot Act's renewal while still in Senate - all while he was promoting an "end to illegal mass surveillance" in his campaign. I'm just saying, at least on this issue, he might be a little different than Obama. I would've still preferred his dad much more...but I'm not really seeing anyone fighting for this major issue. It's not a "privacy" issue...it's a liberty issue - I think that stuff used to be pretty important for Americans, no? I'm not seeing Elizabeth Warren, not seeing Bernie Sanders, nor Hillary Clinton pushing against the surveillance state from the Democratic side.

saboot 12y ago

I'm not in favor of a rand paul president, or even nominee. However I think it's great to at least have one candidate who can steer the conversation towards these issues. Hopefully he will go after candidates on the left and right about this.

encoderer 12y ago

Yeah, and Nixon had a secret plan to end the war. Twice.

jebblue 12y ago
The war that was started by the Democratic Party: http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/2-the-vietnam-war-top-10-mistakes-by-us-presidents/ http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/2-the-vietnam-war-top-10... "President John F. Kennedy had sent military advisors and then troops into South Vietnam. After Kennedy’s assassination, what to do about the Vietnam War became a pressing matter of business for the new president, Lyndon B. Johnson." From there see the VietNam War link: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628478/Vietnam-War http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628478/Vietnam-War "Accepting the de facto partition of Vietnam as unavoidable but still pledging to halt the spread of communism in Asia, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower began a crash program of assistance to the State of Vietnam—or South Vietnam, as it was invariably called. The Saigon Military Mission, a covert operation to conduct psychological warfare and paramilitary activities in South Vietnam, was launched on June 1, 1954"
- mcphage 12y ago
  Oh, well in that case I'll definitely vote for Rand Paul.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  Why does everything have to be about which party is at fault for what? That was a comment about one person's campaign promises.
- encoderer 12y ago
  You way missed the point man. It's about campaign promises not the Vietnam war. Besides, Eisenhower was a republican.

hifier 12y ago

This is my litmus test for all future elections until this issue is resolved. There is and will never be a candidate that reflects all or even most of my positions. But, if a candidate is willing to unequivocally say that they will end domestic surveillance programs and uphold the 4th amendment, they will get my vote over anyone else who shows even the slightest hesitation, period.

Lorento 12y ago
Even over the candidate who promises to end the 2-party system? In other words, make real and lasting overall change, instead of just a single issue.
- hifier 12y ago
  This is the single most important issue of the internet era. The current policy will erase the concept of privacy altogether. It is hardly "just a single issue".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kzhahou 12y ago

This is a sad reminder that the current president, who we were all so hopeful of, has the power to end this B.S. today.

path411 11y ago
Why would he revert his legacy? He has fought pretty hard for surveillance.

transfire 12y ago

Given the current field of candidates, it's pretty much Rand Paul or More-Of-The-Same. Seriously, Hillary is just Obama-term-three and Jeb... oh Lord, talk about scary.

serf 12y ago
as someone who vehemently hated Bush Jr, I am beginning to wonder which would ultimately be more dangerous and damaging to the states; the sneakily nefarious third term Obama cabinet which will say one thing and do the other while ignoring the people calling them out on it to gradually gain small amounts of power, or the recklessly irresponsible and blatant nature of the Bush cowboy genes and the power grabs that are so obvious that half of his own party disagrees. God, it makes me sick to my stomach to sound pro Bush. I promise I don't mean it that way.

T3RMINATED 12y ago

he already lost the Election with this Statement.

mehrzad 12y ago

Great, the man also wants to destroy public funding of science. I understand that that is his opinion, but well fuck that. I want to be a scientist and need REUs. Science is more important than capitalism. Capitalism has failed the world. edit: that last sentence was a bit much, I'll admit.

donatj 12y ago
Capitalism is the reason you are using the wonderful machine in front of you. Capitalism is the reason you have food. Capitalism is the reason you are not right now waiting in line for toilet paper. Capitalism has far from failed. Very little actual good and a lot of bad science has come from public funding.
- mehrzad 12y ago
  >Very little actual good and a lot of bad science has come from public funding. Many, many private and public universities depend on federal grants to do the important research in every field. Perhaps what you say about capitalism is correct, but an increasingly automated society can probably do without it. Look up post-scarcity economics.
- meepmorp 12y ago
  > Very little actual good and a lot of bad science has come from public funding. Are you serious?
- sgift 12y ago
  > Capitalism is the reason you are using the wonderful machine in front of you. Capitalism is the reason you have food. Capitalism is the reason you are not right now waiting in line for toilet paper. Capitalism has far from failed. Correlation doesn't imply causation. That countries like Finland, Sweden etc. exist and do very well (in most metrics better than the USA), which use a system that most people in the US label "socialism" shows that there is not very much reason to believe that any of that was because of capitalism. It could very well be that despite capitalism all that happened. We will never know.

chucksmart 12y ago

Rand supporters can expect persecution.

vandeaq 12y ago

"The president created this vast dragnet by executive order." That's a remarkable simplification. Makes a good sound bite, but demonstrates, to me anyway, that he doesn't mean what he's saying. Falsifying the origin of a problem you claim to intend to fix puts that claim in quite a bit of doubt.

garduque 12y ago

"If elected." Right, so there you go.

simplemath 11y ago

Who gives a fuck, he's unelectable.