Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Rand Paul Filibusters on Patriot Act

Ron Paul Patriot Act Bulk Data Collection NSA Ted Cruz 2012016 Presidential Election

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,215 posts

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=31182495

 

Ooooops.  I meant Rand Paul.  Oh well. Like father, like son.

 

 

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, wrapped up his so-called "filibuster" over the National Security Agency's controversial bulk collection of Americans' phone records just before midnight Thursday.

 

Paul's talk-a-thon on the Senate floor lasted exactly 10 and a half hours.

 

"My voice is rapidly leaving, my bedtime has long since passed," Paul said as he began to wrap up his speech. "The bulk collection must end, and I think we have the votes to do it now."

 

"Thank you for staying and not throwing things. We will try not to do this but every few years," he said. "I want to thank the American people for considering the arguments and hopefully for helping us push this towards a reform where we all respect the Fourth Amendment and the Bill of Rights all again. Thank you Mr. President, and I relinquish the floor."

 

Armed with binders full of material, Paul started his lengthy speech opposing the PATRIOT Act at 1:18 p.m. Wednesday.

“There comes 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," Paul said as he started his speech on the Senate floor. "The bulk collection of all Americans' phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

"The people don't want the bulk collection of their records, and if we were listening, we would hear that," Paul said.

 

Provisions of the PATRIOT Act, including Section 215, which authorizes the NSA's controversial bulk collection of phone records, is set to expire on June 1. Paul, known for his libertarian leanings, has said he does not want the program to be reauthorized.

 

Over the course of his filibuster, Paul was joined by several of his Senate colleagues, most notably including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who is running against Paul in the 2016 presidential campaign...

 

Cruz acknowledged he and Paul “don’t agree entirely on this issue,” but said they are both determined to ensure the government's bulk collection of metadata ends. The two men differ because Cruz supports the House-passed USA Freedom Act, which Paul opposes.

Before speaking on the Senate floor, Cruz presided over the Senate, a task that falls to the newest members of the Senate. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, then took over duties for presiding over the Senate, but he was not expected to join in on the filibuster.

Rubio stands in stark contrast to Cruz and Paul. The Florida senator would like to reauthorize the controversial NSA spying program, a position supported by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Richard Burr, R-Florida, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

But Cruz argued that extending the PATRIOT Act will not pass the Senate, all while Rubio presided over the Senate.

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#2
Mike the average

Mike the average

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,509 posts

Saw a Bloomberg article hating on him when he was just 3.5 hours in, calling it a boring tirade etc

 

Id rather boring than untruthful.


'Force always attracts men of low morality' - Einstein
'Great spirits always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds' - Einstein

#3
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands

dont-believe-the-liberal-media.jpg


Outlook's secret song of the ~week: https://youtu.be/6S20mJvr4vs


#4
tierbook

tierbook

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,259 posts
  • LocationCharleston sc

So he's opposing the Patriot act..... I'm going to assume this a good thing?



#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,215 posts

First of all, thank you to the moderators of the forum for correcting my Rand Paul / Ron Paul confusion.

 

Yes, I think his opposition to the Patriot Act is a good thing. That being said, it is not at all clear where Congress is going to go next. It is very clear that there is substantial support for amending the Patriot Act from its initial form and then re-enacting it. Bulk data collection by the NSA or compelling private entities to allow investigation of bulk data collection by the government seems to be a main sticking point. Many, like Paul, seem to want no government access to bulk data collection, period.  There are some who think that it will not matter, that the NSA will continue to collect bulk data no matter what Congress says.

 

By bulk data collection I mean systematic collection of all or most information about who is telephoning who, who is emailing who, etc. This might (or might not) include monitoring of content.  It is argued that Constitutionally no such monitoring should be done unless accompanied by a court warrant.

 

Please offer corrections or other interpretations as well as updates, as I am already dealing with information that is a few days old.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#6
sorcerer

sorcerer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • LocationFrance

I don't see why 'filibusters' are allowed. If you can't convince people within a reasonable time then you've lost the argument. It's undemocratic.


  • Futurist likes this

#7
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,215 posts

^^ A good question, which caussed me to do some reserch on the issue.

 

http://en.wikipedia....d_States_Senate

 

 

According to the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change itself could be filibustered, with the votes of two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needed to end debate.[1] Despite this written requirement, the possibility exists that the Senate's presiding officer could on motion declare a Senate rule unconstitutional, which decision can be upheld by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

 

 

 

*A debate can be ended by two thirds of the senators.

 

Admittedly, still giving power to a minority.

 

*Declaration by the presiding officer that a Senate rule is unconstitutional. If upheld by a simple majority could change the filibuster rule and thus result in an end to the debate.

 

So a simple majority could end the debate, but would have to do so on constitutional grounds.  That majority would define what constitutes "constitutional" grounds.

 

I have never equated "democratic" with "majority vote".  To me, democracies should always grant certain rights to a minority (examples include freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc.).  Otherwise, a minority can quickly come to rule. 

 

Whether the right to filibuster is one of those rights is open to question.  One that is occasionally revisted and tweaked by the Senate. 


  • sorcerer likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#8
sorcerer

sorcerer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • LocationFrance

Thanks for the analysis. I don't know whether this kind of thing is allowed in other countries, UK for example, but I doubt it. The Speaker would probably tell him to shut up and that would be that, and quite right imho.

 

There are two different issues: there has to be a way to make decisions, and that is by majority vote. The rights of minorities would be guaranteed by law and couldn't be changed.

 

Ending a debate by deliberately running out of time perverts the democratic process - again in my opinion - and it's a surprise that it's permitted in the US, the upholder of democracy.


  • Futurist likes this

#9
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth


Ending a debate by deliberately running out of time perverts the democratic process - again in my opinion - and it's a surprise that it's permitted in the US, the upholder of democracy.

Well, it is worth noting that the U.S. is actually not fully democratic in the strict sense; after all, the U.S. Senate and Electoral College are certainly not fully democratic institutions (for instance, each U.S. state has two seats in the U.S. Senate regardless of its population).



#10
sorcerer

sorcerer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 428 posts
  • LocationFrance

 



Ending a debate by deliberately running out of time perverts the democratic process - again in my opinion - and it's a surprise that it's permitted in the US, the upholder of democracy.

Well, it is worth noting that the U.S. is actually not fully democratic in the strict sense; after all, the U.S. Senate and Electoral College are certainly not fully democratic institutions (for instance, each U.S. state has two seats in the U.S. Senate regardless of its population).

 

Oh yes, that's true. It should be reformed I suppose. Still, compared to the British House of Lords it's pretty good.....



#11
TSM

TSM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • LocationThe good old USA

The filibuster is the first time I've like Rand Paul.  I used to think he was just another one of these newbie Congressmen that pander to the lowest common denominator of the right wing.  But I don't know anymore.  Maybe he's a good guy.  

 

And oh yeah, the way in which the U.S. system is setup is messed up.  First of all, the Electoral College is ridiculous and unnecessary.  Did everyone know that there is no law that requires them to vote according to the votes they represent from the states.  So in theory if one candidate for president won the vote, the electoral college delegates that represents them could vote the other way, and legally that's fine.  It's never happened, and hopefully it never would, but if it did, it would be completely legal.  

 

When I was in college I remember a professor telling us that the Senate was setup the way that it is to appease some of the smaller states\colonies who had misgivings about joining the union.  The smaller colonies didn't want the larger more populous colonies running over them, and not allowing them to have a voice in the federal government.  



#12
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationUnited States

I like Rand Paul, but he's not libertarian enough, especially when it comes to social issues. I think he's obviously more pro-LGBT, pro-choice then the rest of the GOP but that really isn't saying much. 


  • voluntaryist likes this
"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#13
Lunix688

Lunix688

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationUnited States

And oh yeah, the way in which the U.S. system is setup is messed up.  First of all, the Electoral College is ridiculous and unnecessary.  Did everyone know that there is no law that requires them to vote according to the votes they represent from the states.  So in theory if one candidate for president won the vote, the electoral college delegates that represents them could vote the other way, and legally that's fine.  It's never happened, and hopefully it never would, but if it did, it would be completely legal.  

 

 

 

Actually, most states have laws requiring electoral votes to go to the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state. This is true for most states. 

Also, electoral college system also in a sense benefits smaller states - giving them larger say in the U.S. 

 

There is also this which could become a reality when more states join: http://en.wikipedia....erstate_Compact


"Liberterianism is a mental disease. A national health crisis and a threat to the future of this country...Worse than the threat from terrorism, asteroids, disease and yes global warming.
It is mindless anti-government idiocy. If it isn't turned back I predict the end of this country as a world power. Simply put the need to educate our entire population like any sane country is sen as wrong by the cult that practice this foolish idiocy. So is simple workers rights, child labor and every other sane policy of the modern world."
-Matthew
 
"The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.”
-Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
"The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a, from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way."
-Milton Friedman
 
 

 


#14
TSM

TSM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • LocationThe good old USA

 

And oh yeah, the way in which the U.S. system is setup is messed up.  First of all, the Electoral College is ridiculous and unnecessary.  Did everyone know that there is no law that requires them to vote according to the votes they represent from the states.  So in theory if one candidate for president won the vote, the electoral college delegates that represents them could vote the other way, and legally that's fine.  It's never happened, and hopefully it never would, but if it did, it would be completely legal.  

 

 

 

Actually, most states have laws requiring electoral votes to go to the candidate that wins the popular vote in the state. This is true for most states. 

Also, electoral college system also in a sense benefits smaller states - giving them larger say in the U.S. 

 

There is also this which could become a reality when more states join: http://en.wikipedia....erstate_Compact

 

Very interesting, I hadn't heard of that Interstate Compact before.  But they shouldn't have to go through all that.  It's basically band-aiding a broken system.  



#15
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,215 posts

I thought I would follow up on the latest developments regarding re-authorization of the so-called Patriot Act

 

 

http://www.usnews.co...provision-lapse

 

 

The mass surveillance-reforming USA Freedom Act passed the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, ending an impasse on reauthorization of three surveillance authorities and putting in motion a purportedly permanent end to the government’s automatic bulk collection of U.S. phone records....

 

Within six months, the National Security Agency will need to abandon its wholesale collection of phone records and transition to acquiring call logs of targets and those of their contacts as needed in intelligence investigations.

Thirty-two senators voted against the legislation, which would not require phone companies to store records longer than they currently do.

 

 

 

[READ: Kentucky Senators At Odds – And Taking the Blame – for NSA Shutdown]

 

...

 

McConnell, R-Ky., and many fellow Republican senators saw no need to modify Section 215, saying civil liberties were not infringed upon and that opponents misrepresented what the government was doing. But status quo supporters lacked the votes for a "clean" reauthorization bill, and several McConnell amendments to slow or weaken the reforms failed Tuesday.

 

[RELATED: NSA Can't Purge Call Records, Regardless of Congress' Next Move]

 

 

[EARLIER: Ex-CIA Leader Endorses Freedom Act and Mass Collection of Email Records]

 

(Edward) Snowden, speaking via video feed with Amnesty International UK interviewers shortly before the vote, said the Freedom Act was “a first step and an important step” and heralded the phone program’s demise as a significant victory in pushing back on government claims to need enhanced powers.

 

[READ: NSA Whistleblowers Oppose Freedom Act, Endorse Long-Shot Bill]

 

.... 

Last month, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled in favor of the ACLU, finding the collection is not authorized by Section 215. The appeals judges did not answer claims that it violates First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. In December 2013, however, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled in a separate lawsuit the “almost Orwellian” program almost certainly violates the Fourth Amendment.

 

Appeals judges in the ACLU case and several legal experts on mootness say legislation ending the collection puts the privacy lawsuits at risk of dismissal. 

 

The Freedom Act reauthorizes without alteration the other two provisions that temporarily expired. One provision, allowing tracking of “lone wolf” targets not associated with a terror group, has never been used. The other allows “roving wiretaps” of sometimes unnamed targets who communicate with multiple devices.

 

[MORE: Freedom Act May Kill Lawsuits That Seek Major Privacy Ruling]

 

 

 

The Freedom Act does not revise some of the most significant legal authorities the government uses to conduct surveillance, such as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is used for vast Internet surveillance, and Executive Order 12333, which governs collection of intelligence overseas and, according to whistleblower John Napier Tye, could be used to override many congressional reforms without court oversight. Section 702 will expire without congressional reauthorization in 2017.

 

http://www.democracy...cy_or_extension

 

 

Earlier this week, President Obama signed into law a measure ending the mass phone surveillance program exposed by Edward Snowden two years ago..... The law stops the bulk collection of telephone records. It instead requires the NSA to ask companies for a specific user’s data rather than vacuuming up all the records at once. Congressman Jared Polis initially co-sponsored the legislation but ended up voting against the measure. He joins us from Washington, D.C.

 

 

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Polis, we wanted to ...address the issue of the USA FREEDOM Act. Earlier this week, President Obama signed into law the measure ending the mass phone surveillance program exposed by Edward Snowden two years ago...The law stops the bulk collection of telephone records, instead requiring the NSA to ask phone companies for a specific user’s data rather than vacuuming up all the records at once. Congressman Polis, you initially co-sponsored the legislation but ended up voting against the measure in the House. Can you talk about the USA FREEDOM Act and your efforts to rein in spying by the Drug Enforcement Administration, as well?

 

REP. JARED POLIS: .. it’s a strong step forward for privacy advocates. I would argue it doesn’t go far enough. It leaves much of the PATRIOT Act intact. But certainly, some of the most extreme violations and the mass collection of personal data will no longer be authorized under the PATRIOT Act, so it’s a strong step forward. I would like to see additional reforms within the PATRIOT Act so that we can best reach the balance between privacy and national security.

 

We also passed an amendment just yesterday which ended the DEA’s authorization, which was never an explicit authorization, but it was authority they took upon themself—Drug Enforcement Agency, that is—to engage in mass surveillance of personal information, as well. So Congress attached to an appropriations bill a specific removal of any authority from the Drug Enforcement Agency to engage in mass surveillance.

 

AMY GOODMAN: But this USA FREEDOM Act that you co-sponsored and then ended up voting against, what was the original bill, and what did you feel was taken out that was too important to be taken out, which is why you ultimately voted against it?

 

REP. JARED POLIS: Sure. So, the USA FREEDOM Act is essentially a reform of the PATRIOT Act, which is the post-9/11 authorization that ...gave the government more tools to look into the terrorist threat against our country. It’s a broad scope to that legislation. There’s parts of it that are unobjectionable, and there’s others that raise very important privacy concerns. One of the set of privacy concerns raised were around one of the processes around mass surveillance or mass gathering of data. There was a blanket authorization, or at least the executive branch interpreted the authorization of the PATRIOT Act to provide them with the authority for a blanket authorization for metadata, etc., from people. That specific authority has been ended.

 

Where the bill still goes too far, in my opinion, is it allows for keywords to be used for mass surveillance of information that’s retained at the phone companies. For instance, a city or geographical term, however specific—it might be the entire state of New York or California or Los Angeles, there’s really not any specific legal parameters around this—could still be used in a government request of information that continues to be stockpiled at a private company. We would also want to make sure that security concerns are addressed with regards to how companies maintain their databases of our personal information.

 

 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#16
Alric

Alric

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts

The filibuster is the first time I've like Rand Paul.  I used to think he was just another one of these newbie Congressmen that pander to the lowest common denominator of the right wing.  But I don't know anymore.  Maybe he's a good guy.  

 

I am not so sure, because apparently during the middle of the filibuster he send out a massive ad campaign requesting donations from supporters basically saying, "Look at how I fight for your rights, but I need more money to win!"







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Ron Paul, Patriot Act, Bulk Data Collection, NSA, Ted Cruz, 2012016 Presidential Election

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users