10 ms·
Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act
- jdp23 11y agoI changed the original headline to be more accurate. Paul's saying he'll block votes on USA Freedom or any extension to the current laws, which means that several clauses in the Patriot Act will sunset (section 215 including the phone dragnet and business records, roving wiretap, and lone wolf).
- zxcvcxz 11y agoNot questioning you, but could you provide a source? I'm genuinely interested. Also is it possible to prevent those provisions from passing?
- jqm 11y agoGood for him. This "freedom act" bait and switch is nonsense IMOP. I don't care much about politics, nor about Paul, but on this issue I agree. They need to sit down and develop a comprehensive plan without the secrecy (except at operational levels), without the sensationalism and fear mongering and without the blatant and quickly revealed lies that have come out of NSA personal and Obama's mouths. Most importantly, we need to be clear on the objectives. As it is there is a pervasive dirty feeling that the the ulterior motive is surveillance and control of US citizenry for purposes of retaining power. This might not be the case but with the amount of deceit that has recently occurred many people feel this way. So they need to start over in a transparent and trustworthy way.
- ndesaulniers 11y ago"of portions" is like some pretty awful fine print. Death to the "Patriot" Act!
- MBlume 11y agoSome parts of the original Patriot Act were written to expire. It's easier to get rid of those parts than it is to get rid of the rest because it's easier to prevent something from happening in congress than to cause something to happen.
- MCRed 11y agoSome of the patriot act was made permanent by Obama.
- bhouston 11y agoIt is too bad Rand Paul is having problems fundraising from the large US billionaires that seem to be major determinants in the Republican primaries.
- dataker 11y agoI've been waiting years to see someone like him running for presidency, but I lack experience in Politics to determine if he could have a shot.
- jodah 11y agoHe has a shot, and it's great to see him taking this stand, but he's a flawed person/candidate in many other ways.
- meepmorp 11y agoHe's got a shot in the way anyone who declares a candidacy and meets the legal requirements has a shot. If you're talking about odds of getting the nomination (let alone winning the general), then he's got basicly zero chance.
- x5n1 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tv5CT7r3Txo#t=352 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tv...
- MCRed 11y agoOver a year out, he only trails Clinton by a few points: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge... Consider that Clinton has been on the national stage for 30+ years, while Rand has only been on it for months. That's way more than just "a shot", that's damn good.
- mahouse 11y agoWhy is that I always confuse Rand Paul with Ron Paul?
- irishcoffee 11y agoWell, I can't source it via a link at the moment (I'm looking) but I have had multiple face-to-face conversations with people who have told me that Rand Paul has been invited to NSA 5-6 times, and refuses to visit. Ignorance is truly bliss.
- spenvo 11y agoBecause visiting the NSA would enlighten him in any way? Critics of the organization would likely be granted zero visibility into their decision making process. Just look how they have treated their own high level employees who voiced concern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake). It would be a waste of a day. Maybe he could have met with Clapper - the man that perjured himself before Congress. Or Keith Alexander - the profiteer who is making millions off surveillance tech he was developing while head of the NSA. ( <-- That's the guy that made policy decisions on how invasive surveillance should be. FML) If the cronies want his ear: they should come to his office. If anything, a visit to the NSA would bring negative connotations in the public's eye.
- irishcoffee 11y agoKeep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
- meepmorp 11y agoWhat harm is there in hearing what they've got to say? If it's bullshit, then it's bullshit. Refusing to take a day to head down and see their presentation isn't a principled stand, it's being concerned with your brand.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago> What harm is there in hearing what they've got to say? Having the justification for a program of this nature be a secret is not compatible with democracy. So if they have something to say they should tell it to The Washington Post.
- 11y ago
- hackinthebochs 11y agoI'm as liberal as they come but I will be voting for Rand Paul if he ends up with the Republican nomination. This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter. Bernie Sanders seems like a great candidate, but I fear he is too reasonable and conciliatory to do what is necessary to properly reign in the entrenched interests of the military/intelligence industrial complex. At this point it seems like nothing short of a campaign of slash-and-burn against these agencies will get the job done, and it's going to take someone as "nutty" as a Paul to do it.
- enupten 11y agoBernie Sanders does appear much more consistent than Hillary; and he unlike Hillary has talked of dismantling the NSA. I'm afraid he won't make the Democratic nomination. The other republicans seem like a bunch of idiots. It's likely that Hillary will come to power. She does seem to have the money for it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- hackinthebochs 11y agoAs far as I know he is pro-states rights when it comes to abortion and gay marriage. That is, he supports a weak federal government and the right of states to make these decisions. But either way, the issue of unconstitutional surveillance, and the entrenched interests in favor of it, is by far the single most important issue facing this country. I will be casting my vote with this fact in mind. It is absurd to judge someone's commitment to liberal ideals by how they weigh the relative importance of issues.
- MCRed 11y agoI agree. Libertarians are the original Gay Rights and Abortion Rights supporters, going back to the 1970s. When Obama and Hillary were still anti gay-marriage (in 2013, before it became something they couldn't ignore) and when Bill Clinton was signing the "Defense of Marriage Act" along with 3/4 of Congressional Democrats approval... and for two decades even prior to that, Libertarians were in favor of getting the government out of marriage. Notice the Libertarian position is not the same as the mainstream "Gay Marriage" position. Libertarians would legalize Poly marriage as well, while I've had Gay Marriage Advocates give me a list of reasons why that shouldn't be legal. While some Libertarian candidates are personally against abortion, they would be laughed out of the movement if they advocated actually passing laws at the federal level to restrict it. Hey, I'm even personally not a fan of it (though I paid for one once) but that is completely different from being willing to support their bans, and I wouldn't support someone who wanted to ban them. (And yet I work for the Michael Badnarik campaign for a little while and he was "anti-abortion") Rand is going to have a tough time getting the republican nomination because that party hasn't quite realized that it's being to conservative and not responsible enough. So I don't mind that he's not taking a stand on these things. In fact, if we were in a climate where gay rights were being restricted (increased restrictions) or abortion were being fought (at the federal level) then I might be more worried about it. But we are not. W ran on a strong anti-abortion platform and nothing really happened during his term. He didn't even try. He knew it was a wedge issue, more than anything. Only at the state level are Abortions at risk. The real crime of our time is the out of control federal spying, adventurism and rights violations. (this is not a rebuttal to hackinthebochs who said nothing I disagree with.) EDIT: My statements are historical fact and consistent with what's known about libertarians: They want the state out of these kinds of decisions. Yet I'm downvoted. Is it because I'm pointing out that the Democrats don't really support gay rights? Sorry, but it's true. When clinton signed DoMA with broad democrat support, I was out. Sure the republicans were worse at that time, but I'm not going to compromise the idea that I don't have a right to get married! Even in the 1990s the Libertarians were the only party that was clearly pro gay rights and so I joined them. The past 20 years have proven me right. I take down votes (without comments or rebuttals) as merely an admission of the frustration at this truth.
- dbg31415 11y agoGood man.
- kelvin0 11y agoAnyone remember a certain president who was supposed to shut down guatanamo within a few months within being in office? This has the same 'smell' to it ...
- lazyjones 11y agoHe was also supposed to protect whistleblowers. I had the same thought as you when I read the title...
- mokus 11y agoHe is stating intent to do a specific thing on a specific day in the very near future (tomorrow) without precondition or contingency on outcome of any other events. This is not even remotely the same thing as "if I am elected I will..."
- meepmorp 11y agoAnyone remember the big ol' freak out in congress in response to closing Gitmo and moving detainees to the U.S. proper? In 2009, the Senate approved an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations act for that year that blocked funds to move or release Gitmo detainees, by a vote of 90-6. That shit wasn't gonna happen. And maybe Obama ought to have known better, but he sure isn't exclusively at fault there.