
Rand Paul: 'I will force the expiration' of portions of Patriot Act - jdp23
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/exclusive-rand-paul-i-will-force-the-expiration-of-the-patriot-act-118443.html
======
hackinthebochs
I'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.

~~~
hackuser
> This is one issue where I will be a one issue voter.

Consider all the other issues. For example, with Rand Paul as President, the
GOP would certainly control the White House, and House of Representatives,
very likely have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court within a few years
(depending on Justice Ginsberg) ... they'd need only the Senate for one-party
rule.

Many, many other things would happen that you probably would not like.

~~~
zxcvcxz
It seems the choice is between an Authoritarian left or a small-government
right.

I'll take small government over monolithic Authoritarianism any day.

~~~
mikeyouse
Just a reminder, the small government right led by Rand Paul would
dramatically expand military spending..

Http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/

~~~
zxcvcxz
But what president won't?

~~~
mikeyouse
Many wouldn't but in the context of this discussion, Bernie Sanders is
probably a good example.

------
jqm
Good 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.

------
dataker
I'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.

~~~
meepmorp
He'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.

~~~
MCRed
Over a year out, he only trails Clinton by a few points:
[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html)

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.

~~~
dublinben
It doesn't matter how he polls against Clinton, if he has no chance of winning
the Republican nomination. Gingrich, Santorum, and RuPaul were similarly "a
few points" behind Obama in 2012, and they had just as little chance of ever
becoming president.

------
jdp23
I 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
Not questioning you, but could you provide a source? I'm genuinely interested.

Also is it possible to prevent those provisions from passing?

------
bhouston
It is too bad Rand Paul is having problems fundraising from the large US
billionaires that seem to be major determinants in the Republican primaries.

------
ndesaulniers
"of portions" is like some pretty awful fine print. Death to the "Patriot"
Act!

~~~
MBlume
Some 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.

------
kelvin0
Anyone 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
...

~~~
mokus
He 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..."

------
dbg31415
Good man.

------
mahouse
Why is that I always confuse Rand Paul with Ron Paul?

~~~
jchrome
I usually confuse RuPaul with Pope Paul II

~~~
meepmorp
You confuse a 6'4" black drag queen with a 15th century Italian priest?

~~~
a3n
You never see them in the same room together at the same time ...

~~~
meepmorp
I cannot deny that's true.

------
irishcoffee
Well, 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
Because 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.

~~~
meepmorp
What 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.

~~~
spenvo
If politicians don't care about their brand, they've pursued the wrong career.

The visible nature of a visit would be exploited. He'd be painted as guilty by
association. Politics is petty... so much so that, in this case, a superPAC-
funded negative campaign ad (running 24-7 in battleground states) would say:
"Rand Paul visited the NSA 6 times since he's been a Senator, yet he preaches
reform. So let's ask _you_ Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA?'"

Let's keep in mind: there's no way if OP's story or sources are true --- maybe
he has met with NSA -- and if he has, I'd hope he wouldn't go around blabbing
about it, for the above reason ^^

~~~
krapp
>So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA?

Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being
associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential
candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA
is part of a senator's job. It would _definitely_ be a president's job.

What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of making
principled stands based on willful ignorance. If he intends to run the
country, he can't simply pretend the parts of the government he doesn't like
don't exist.

~~~
Ironchefpython
> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise

Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for
you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in
intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a
flag and strangle a bald eagle?

~~~
krapp
I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal.
I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see
the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant.

For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close
relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if
he intends to change or reform them.

~~~
Ironchefpython
> I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal

So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like
extortion and racketeering. The _company_ isn't illegal, just the activities
of a tiny fraction of its employees.

~~~
krapp
Yes, probably. Which implies Rand Paul is running for Godfather.

