18 ms·

Livestream of Rand Paul Filibustering Reauthorization of the Patriot Act [video]

321 points by sinak 11y ago

swamp40 11y ago
First words: Mr. President, there comes to a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer. That time is now. And i will not let the Patriot Act, the most un-patriotic of acts, go unchallenged. At the very least we should debate, we should debate whether or not we are going to relinquish our rights or whether or not we are going to have full and able debate over whronts we can live within -- whether or not we can live within the constitution or whether or not we have to go around the constitution. The bulk collection of all americans' phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. The second appeals court has ruled till legal. The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end it through executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is illegal and yet he does nothing. He says, well, congress can get rid of the Patriot Act. Congress can get rid of the bulk collection. And yet he has the power to do it at his fingertips. He began this illegal program. The court has informed him that the program is illegal. He has every power to stop it and yet the president does nothing. Justice Brandeis wrote that the right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights, most prized among civilized men. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to privacy. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to be left alone.
- stevenmays 11y ago
  I clicked the link and it's another senator talking... anyone know where I can view the opening part of this?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - adventured 11y ago
    Here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-nsa-surveillance http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-... At the top of the video, click on "Watch this program from the beginning" Skip to something like 3 hours and 50 minutes into the video. That's roughly where Paul begins.
    - GauntletWizard 11y ago
      Here's a clip of just that bit: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4538428/rand-pauls-patriot-act-fillibuster http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4538428/rand-pauls-patriot-act...
- abtinf 11y ago
  Technical note for those not familiar with U.S. Senate style: the first "Mr. President" refers to the President Pro Tempore of the senate (currently Sen. Orin Hatch), not the President of the United States.
adventured 11y ago
This is an astounding speech. He's hitting everything that needs to be hit. Civil asset forfeiture Patriot Act Broad surveillance Mass incarceration War on drugs etc
- rsync 11y ago
  These are tactical decisions he is making in an effort to win the presidency. If he could gain just one more vote by saying the exact opposite of everything above, he would do it. And so would "your guy". Or gal. Even if this assertion of mine is note technically true, you should behave as if it is.
  - adventured 11y ago
    I believe that accusation is plainly wrong. Paul has long represented these, and similar liberty oriented positions. He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it. These are not positions you take in order to win the Presidency, and he does not have a realistic shot at winning. That will go to eg Bush or Clinton, both of which are pro war, and pro surveillance.
    - balls187 11y ago
      >He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it and is mostly consistent about it. Except when it comes to: A woman's right to choose Gay Marriage Legalizing Recreational Drugs US Foreign Policy He is a politician and as he is being groomed for making a run for presidency he is backpeddling. Which is consistent with every president in modern US history.
      - adventured 11y ago
        Those statements are clearly wrong. 1) He's against the present interventionist foreign policy. he has been extremely clear about that for years. 2) He's in favor of states being left to decide for themselves about drug legalization. If Texas wants to support the legalization of pot, his position is that that is up to Texas voters. 2a) Paul constantly makes the point that the war on drugs has been a disaster, and constantly hits against the mass incarceration system we have today. He makes the point non-stop. He points out the unfairness of our current system, such that it's putting black people in prison for the same things white people are getting away with (drug use). 3) He's in favor of states being left to choose about both abortion and gay marriage. 4) He is not in favor of any federal legislation to outlaw either abortion or gay marriage. Paul has said he would not attempt to change present laws on abortion.
vowelless 11y ago
Correct link is https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=320 https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=... But it does give me a bad certificate warning.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- bradbatt 11y ago
  Another option is C-SPAN, which is livestreaming it as well … http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2 http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2
dimino 11y ago
When did he start? How long is he expected to go for?
- adventured 11y ago
  He started at 1:18pm EST I believe.
akulbe 11y ago
You GO, sir!
Beached 11y ago
GO RAND
dvdfvo 11y ago
How long has he been talking? How does this work, only if he stops can the process continue? Can he realistically achieve anything here?
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  only if he stops can the process continue? That's the idea. So long as he has the floor, they can't vote. But he can only keep the floor so long as he keeps talking. Can he realistically achieve anything here? One person can't usually achieve more than a political statement, because one person can't usually talk for long enough to have a meaningful impact. Successful filibusters usually involve the cooperation of a number of people.
  - jkestner 11y ago
    It'd be nice if Wyden joined him.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      He just did.
- btilly 11y ago
  If he and his friends can keep talking, they can keep going until cloture is invoked. That takes a couple of days and 60 senators. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#Procedure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#Procedure for the exact procedure.
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    Since it isn't actually a filibuster, he has to yield the floor by 1PM Eastern tomorrow according to Senate procedure.
- state_machine 11y ago
  > How does this work, only if he stops can the process continue? The senate isn't actually discussing or voting on the USA Freedom Act today (floor schedule is for discussions of an unrelated trade bill) and this discussion can be cut off tomorrow anyway, so this isn't technically a filibuster (yet).
lbarrett 11y ago
He seems like a bad man in many ways, but I'm glad he's working on doing the right thing in this case.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  On what grounds is he a bad man? Do you have reasons aside from disagreeing with his politics?
jakobdabo 11y ago
Flagging legitimate threads by some members is the worst thing on HN. A thread can have a hundred upvotes but just a few flags will move it out from the front-page, effectively killing the discussion. Something has to be done about this, i.e. ignore flaggings once a thread gets 15 points and maybe alert the mods so they can make human decision on whether leave it or flag out.
- GlickWick 11y ago
  I'm unclear as to how this thread is legitimate, personally. Doesn't seem to really fit with HN. I'm no fan of the Patriot Act either, but this belongs somewhere like Reddit.
  - jakobdabo 11y ago
    At this point 65 users of HN are thinking otherwise. edit: I didn't downvote you
    - GlickWick 11y ago
      That doesn't necessarily matter. It's well established by now that communities tend to upvote things they "like", not specifically things that belong. We know there's a large overlap between users of HN and Libertarians, which in itself is fine, but it doesn't mean this type of discussion should be occurring here.
      - dvdfvo 11y ago
        If you don't give any merit to a majority vote, why should relevance be given to your singular opinion? Seems like a double standard honestly.
        GlickWick 11y ago
        I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm not saying my opinion matters, I'm just pointing out that this thread is definitely not supposed to be on HN, as is defined by the rules of the website. I'm not positing an opinion, I'm arguing for a fact.
powellzer 11y ago
who's talking now?
- TDL 11y ago
  It's Rand Paul & Ron Wyden who are talking right now.
randomname2 11y ago
To those who argue this submission isn't relevant for a tech audience: the Senators in this hearing are discussing backdoors and encryption right now, which is pretty relevant actually, and not something we often see on the Senate floor.
- joslin01 11y ago
  One of his proposed amendments is to disallow governments mandating products change their source code to allow entities access into the data (e.g., a backdoor for the NSA). So basically, allowing encryption, which would be huge.
  - JoshTriplett 11y ago
    That shouldn't even need to be an amendment. With a government based on an enumerated and limited set of powers (which the US government is in theory though blatantly not in practice), it should suffice to not explicitly permit them to do so.
godgod 11y ago
President Rand Paul!
WalterSear 11y ago
The title is misleading. He isn't filibustering unless he goes past 1pm tomorrow. The fact that he has started now, rather than tomorrow at 1pm demonstrates that he isn't serious - it's just an insubstantial, disingenuous grab for attention.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  I suppose you think the same thing about the other senators who are participating in the filibuster?
  - godgod 11y ago
    WalterSear won't grant Paul any credit on the issue, yet I'm sure he will give anyone with a (D) next to their name a free pass. WalterSear, your biased panties are showing.
  - WalterSear 11y ago
    I didn't know there were any, but yes, whoever they are. The vote is tomorrow, this is stupid. EDIT: Either this is stupid, or, if there are enough people to keep this up for an extended period, it's brilliant. But, I fear that that is a lot to hope for.
- mayneack 11y ago
  Your comment is misleading. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/may/20/rand-paul-senate-filibuster-nsa-spying-patriot-act-live#block-555ccdc8e4b0c086d6b713ac http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/may/20/rand-pau...
davesque 11y ago
Ugh...I can't stand this. Says Senator Lee, "we ask you, Mr. President." As though he bears full responsibility for all of this. Pathetic political grandstanding. As a reminder, which administration gave birth to the Patriot Act?
- 13years 11y ago
  Point understood; however, when you do have the full capability to end something, and you don't, then you do have full responsibility for the present day situation.
- rsfinn 11y ago
  In formal debate all remarks are supposed to be addressed to the president of the deliberative body. In this case "Mr. President" may well be the President of the Senate, not the President of the United States. (Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to listen to the stream yet, so I don't actually know whom Sen. Lee is addressing. In the top remark, Sen. Rand is most likely addressing the President of the Senate.)
  - davesque 11y ago
    Oh, lol. Never mind :)
- adventured 11y ago
  Paul has been hitting his party for three hours on their support of surveillance and the patriot act.
- bdcravens 11y ago
  As others have pointed out, "Mr. President" is not referring to the President of the United States, but of the Senate. That said, anytime an extension to the Patriot Act crosses their desk, and the President of the United States doesn't veto it, they are bearing responsibility.
TD-Linux 11y ago
For those who don't have Silverlight, you can play this link in mpv or VLC: mms://207.7.154.95/G1075_002?wmcache=0
akshatpradhan 11y ago
I found it here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-nsa-surveillance&live http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-...
hurin 11y ago
It would be nice if flagging had a generic selection as in stackexchange reasons for flagging, and users could vote to remove flags. While there are certainly highly up-voted topics that deserve to go to the bottom for other reasons - I don't think this is one of them.
Istof 11y ago
It seems like it would be a lot safer to elect Rand Paul as US President then it was President B. Obama
- PopsiclePete 11y ago
  I'm not one of those "everything Obama does is wrong" people, but the man has been frightfully wrong on Police State issues, IMO, as well as persecution of whistle-blowers.
  - aagha 11y ago
    And that's not just it. Also on deportation, health care (written by the insurance companies), drone strikes, JSPO, freedom of expression [0] and the list goes on and on... 0 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/
  - Istof 11y ago
    I am not one of those either, he has done some good, but he hasn't done anything that I was planning on him to do (thinking (un-)PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo for example).

321 points by sinak 11y ago

First words: Mr. President, there comes to a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer. That time is now. And i will not let the Patriot Act, the most un-patriotic of acts, go unchallenged. At the very least we should debate, we should debate whether or not we are going to relinquish our rights or whether or not we are going to have full and able debate over whronts we can live within -- whether or not we can live within the constitution or whether or not we have to go around the constitution. The bulk collection of all americans' phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. The second appeals court has ruled till legal. The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end it through executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is illegal and yet he does nothing. He says, well, congress can get rid of the Patriot Act. Congress can get rid of the bulk collection. And yet he has the power to do it at his fingertips. He began this illegal program. The court has informed him that the program is illegal. He has every power to stop it and yet the president does nothing. Justice Brandeis wrote that the right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights, most prized among civilized men. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to privacy. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to be left alone.

stevenmays 11y ago
I clicked the link and it's another senator talking... anyone know where I can view the opening part of this?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 11y ago
  Here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-nsa-surveillance http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-... At the top of the video, click on "Watch this program from the beginning" Skip to something like 3 hours and 50 minutes into the video. That's roughly where Paul begins.
  - GauntletWizard 11y ago
    Here's a clip of just that bit: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4538428/rand-pauls-patriot-act-fillibuster http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4538428/rand-pauls-patriot-act...
abtinf 11y ago
Technical note for those not familiar with U.S. Senate style: the first "Mr. President" refers to the President Pro Tempore of the senate (currently Sen. Orin Hatch), not the President of the United States.

adventured 11y ago

This is an astounding speech. He's hitting everything that needs to be hit. Civil asset forfeiture Patriot Act Broad surveillance Mass incarceration War on drugs etc

rsync 11y ago
These are tactical decisions he is making in an effort to win the presidency. If he could gain just one more vote by saying the exact opposite of everything above, he would do it. And so would "your guy". Or gal. Even if this assertion of mine is note technically true, you should behave as if it is.
- adventured 11y ago
  I believe that accusation is plainly wrong. Paul has long represented these, and similar liberty oriented positions. He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it. These are not positions you take in order to win the Presidency, and he does not have a realistic shot at winning. That will go to eg Bush or Clinton, both of which are pro war, and pro surveillance.
  - balls187 11y ago
    >He has a strong libertarian ideology bent and is mostly consistent about it and is mostly consistent about it. Except when it comes to: A woman's right to choose Gay Marriage Legalizing Recreational Drugs US Foreign Policy He is a politician and as he is being groomed for making a run for presidency he is backpeddling. Which is consistent with every president in modern US history.
    - adventured 11y ago
      Those statements are clearly wrong. 1) He's against the present interventionist foreign policy. he has been extremely clear about that for years. 2) He's in favor of states being left to decide for themselves about drug legalization. If Texas wants to support the legalization of pot, his position is that that is up to Texas voters. 2a) Paul constantly makes the point that the war on drugs has been a disaster, and constantly hits against the mass incarceration system we have today. He makes the point non-stop. He points out the unfairness of our current system, such that it's putting black people in prison for the same things white people are getting away with (drug use). 3) He's in favor of states being left to choose about both abortion and gay marriage. 4) He is not in favor of any federal legislation to outlaw either abortion or gay marriage. Paul has said he would not attempt to change present laws on abortion.

vowelless 11y ago

Correct link is https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=320 https://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&event_id=... But it does give me a bad certificate warning.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bradbatt 11y ago
Another option is C-SPAN, which is livestreaming it as well … http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2 http://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span-2

dimino 11y ago

When did he start? How long is he expected to go for?

adventured 11y ago
He started at 1:18pm EST I believe.

akulbe 11y ago

You GO, sir!

Beached 11y ago

GO RAND

dvdfvo 11y ago

How long has he been talking? How does this work, only if he stops can the process continue? Can he realistically achieve anything here?

sliverstorm 11y ago
only if he stops can the process continue? That's the idea. So long as he has the floor, they can't vote. But he can only keep the floor so long as he keeps talking. Can he realistically achieve anything here? One person can't usually achieve more than a political statement, because one person can't usually talk for long enough to have a meaningful impact. Successful filibusters usually involve the cooperation of a number of people.
- jkestner 11y ago
  It'd be nice if Wyden joined him.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    He just did.
btilly 11y ago
If he and his friends can keep talking, they can keep going until cloture is invoked. That takes a couple of days and 60 senators. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#Procedure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#Procedure for the exact procedure.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  Since it isn't actually a filibuster, he has to yield the floor by 1PM Eastern tomorrow according to Senate procedure.
state_machine 11y ago
> How does this work, only if he stops can the process continue? The senate isn't actually discussing or voting on the USA Freedom Act today (floor schedule is for discussions of an unrelated trade bill) and this discussion can be cut off tomorrow anyway, so this isn't technically a filibuster (yet).

lbarrett 11y ago

He seems like a bad man in many ways, but I'm glad he's working on doing the right thing in this case.

sliverstorm 11y ago
On what grounds is he a bad man? Do you have reasons aside from disagreeing with his politics?

jakobdabo 11y ago

Flagging legitimate threads by some members is the worst thing on HN. A thread can have a hundred upvotes but just a few flags will move it out from the front-page, effectively killing the discussion. Something has to be done about this, i.e. ignore flaggings once a thread gets 15 points and maybe alert the mods so they can make human decision on whether leave it or flag out.

GlickWick 11y ago
I'm unclear as to how this thread is legitimate, personally. Doesn't seem to really fit with HN. I'm no fan of the Patriot Act either, but this belongs somewhere like Reddit.
- jakobdabo 11y ago
  At this point 65 users of HN are thinking otherwise. edit: I didn't downvote you
  - GlickWick 11y ago
    That doesn't necessarily matter. It's well established by now that communities tend to upvote things they "like", not specifically things that belong. We know there's a large overlap between users of HN and Libertarians, which in itself is fine, but it doesn't mean this type of discussion should be occurring here.
    - dvdfvo 11y ago
      If you don't give any merit to a majority vote, why should relevance be given to your singular opinion? Seems like a double standard honestly.
      - GlickWick 11y ago
        I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm not saying my opinion matters, I'm just pointing out that this thread is definitely not supposed to be on HN, as is defined by the rules of the website. I'm not positing an opinion, I'm arguing for a fact.

powellzer 11y ago

who's talking now?

TDL 11y ago
It's Rand Paul & Ron Wyden who are talking right now.

randomname2 11y ago

To those who argue this submission isn't relevant for a tech audience: the Senators in this hearing are discussing backdoors and encryption right now, which is pretty relevant actually, and not something we often see on the Senate floor.

joslin01 11y ago
One of his proposed amendments is to disallow governments mandating products change their source code to allow entities access into the data (e.g., a backdoor for the NSA). So basically, allowing encryption, which would be huge.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  That shouldn't even need to be an amendment. With a government based on an enumerated and limited set of powers (which the US government is in theory though blatantly not in practice), it should suffice to not explicitly permit them to do so.

godgod 11y ago

President Rand Paul!

WalterSear 11y ago

The title is misleading. He isn't filibustering unless he goes past 1pm tomorrow. The fact that he has started now, rather than tomorrow at 1pm demonstrates that he isn't serious - it's just an insubstantial, disingenuous grab for attention.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
I suppose you think the same thing about the other senators who are participating in the filibuster?
- godgod 11y ago
  WalterSear won't grant Paul any credit on the issue, yet I'm sure he will give anyone with a (D) next to their name a free pass. WalterSear, your biased panties are showing.
- WalterSear 11y ago
  I didn't know there were any, but yes, whoever they are. The vote is tomorrow, this is stupid. EDIT: Either this is stupid, or, if there are enough people to keep this up for an extended period, it's brilliant. But, I fear that that is a lot to hope for.
mayneack 11y ago
Your comment is misleading. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/may/20/rand-paul-senate-filibuster-nsa-spying-patriot-act-live#block-555ccdc8e4b0c086d6b713ac http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2015/may/20/rand-pau...

davesque 11y ago

Ugh...I can't stand this. Says Senator Lee, "we ask you, Mr. President." As though he bears full responsibility for all of this. Pathetic political grandstanding. As a reminder, which administration gave birth to the Patriot Act?

13years 11y ago
Point understood; however, when you do have the full capability to end something, and you don't, then you do have full responsibility for the present day situation.
rsfinn 11y ago
In formal debate all remarks are supposed to be addressed to the president of the deliberative body. In this case "Mr. President" may well be the President of the Senate, not the President of the United States. (Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to listen to the stream yet, so I don't actually know whom Sen. Lee is addressing. In the top remark, Sen. Rand is most likely addressing the President of the Senate.)
- davesque 11y ago
  Oh, lol. Never mind :)
adventured 11y ago
Paul has been hitting his party for three hours on their support of surveillance and the patriot act.
bdcravens 11y ago
As others have pointed out, "Mr. President" is not referring to the President of the United States, but of the Senate. That said, anytime an extension to the Patriot Act crosses their desk, and the President of the United States doesn't veto it, they are bearing responsibility.

TD-Linux 11y ago

For those who don't have Silverlight, you can play this link in mpv or VLC: mms://207.7.154.95/G1075_002?wmcache=0

akshatpradhan 11y ago

I found it here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-nsa-surveillance&live http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-...

hurin 11y ago

It would be nice if flagging had a generic selection as in stackexchange reasons for flagging, and users could vote to remove flags. While there are certainly highly up-voted topics that deserve to go to the bottom for other reasons - I don't think this is one of them.

Istof 11y ago

It seems like it would be a lot safer to elect Rand Paul as US President then it was President B. Obama

PopsiclePete 11y ago
I'm not one of those "everything Obama does is wrong" people, but the man has been frightfully wrong on Police State issues, IMO, as well as persecution of whistle-blowers.
- aagha 11y ago
  And that's not just it. Also on deportation, health care (written by the insurance companies), drone strikes, JSPO, freedom of expression [0] and the list goes on and on... 0 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2532528/
- Istof 11y ago
  I am not one of those either, he has done some good, but he hasn't done anything that I was planning on him to do (thinking (un-)PATRIOT Act and Guantanamo for example).