
Rand Paul Pledges to Immediately End NSA Mass Surveillance If Elected President - clusterbits
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/rand-paul-pledges-to-immediately-end-nsa-mass-surveillance-if-elected-president-20150407
======
lubos
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.

~~~
morgante
I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and
same-sex marriages a libertarian.

~~~
crazy1van
> I don't think it's fair to call someone who advocates against abortion and
> same-sex marriages a libertarian.

Regarding abortion: Libertarians believe in individual liberties. So if you
believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent with
libertarian-ism to protect its life. The crux of the debate is when does does
a fetus become a person.

Regarding same-sex marriages: Again, relating this question to personal
freedom, a typical libertarian position is that in the eyes of the law and
gov't, a gay marriage should be the same as a heterosexual marriage. However,
an individual should have the freedom to not participate in a gay marriage. In
other words, saying one person has the freedom to marry who they wish and
another has the freedom to not participate in the wedding is very consistent
with libertarian views.

~~~
morgante
> So if you believe that an unborn child is a person, it is very consistent
> with libertarian-ism to protect its life.

Is it though? Most libertarians say the government shouldn't force you to feed
a starving person, but banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and
care for another person (even if you consider a fetus a person).

> Regarding same-sex marriages:

Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction
between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy?

~~~
crazy1van
> banning abortion means forcing a mother to feed and care for another person
> (even if you consider a fetus a person).

There's a difference between murdering a person and being forced to feed him.
So assuming for this argument that a fetus is a person, an abortion would be
akin to murder. Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being
forced to raise him. Libertarians who believe fetuses are persons are arguing
you can't abort the baby, but you can have the baby adopted.

> Can you explain how a governmental (even at the state level) distinction
> between marriage types is consistent with libertarian philosophy?

I might not understand the question, but many libertarians want the government
out of the business of defining marriage at all except where it relates to
interacting with the government. Paul seems to have dithered on this issue
quite a bit, but this quote of his to National Review in 2013 seems fairly
libertarian: "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic
and religious definition of marriage...That being said, I'm not for
eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax
code more neutral, so it doesn't mention marriage. Then we don't have to
redefine what marriage is; we just don't have marriage in the tax code."

~~~
morgante
> Being forced to care for the person would be akin to being forced to raise
> him.

Until the baby is born, it does depend entirely on the mother's resources. It
literally pulls energy out of her blood stream.

Now, I don't think fetuses are people, but if you believe they are then you
have to admit that for the duration of the pregnancy the mother is compelled
to feed and provide for that "person."

~~~
crazy1van
Yeah, it gets tricky to pick the policy that maximizes individual liberty when
one person is biologically dependent on another to live. One way to analyze it
is to look at which person sacrifices the greater freedom. If the mother
terminates the pregnancy, the baby loses its life. If the baby is allowed to
live off the mother's resources until birth, the mother sacrifices 9 months of
her body's resources. Again, this all assumes the fetus is a person, which I
believe is Rand Paul's position.

------
zmanian
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
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
> 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
That's true but it's only GOP primary voters they were concerned about.

~~~
meepmorp
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.

------
researcher88
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
> 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.

------
xnull2guest
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?

------
zak_mc_kracken
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
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...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/why-we-should-all-care-about-
senates-vote-fisa-amendments-act-warrantless-domestic)

He's been against the Patriot Act as well:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/rand-
pau...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/02/rand-paul-vs-the-
patriot-act/71323/)

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-j...](http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-
john-brennan-cia-nominee-88507.html)

And he supports abolishing the TSA:

[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0504/Sen....](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2012/0504/Sen.-Rand-
Paul-knows-how-to-fix-the-TSA-end-it)

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.

~~~
zak_mc_kracken
None of what you say contradicts anything that I said.

He's not against government, he's against government when it bothers him and
in favor of government when it suits him.

------
vandeaq
"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.

------
hifier
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
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
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".

------
saboot
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.

------
panarky
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
>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.

------
transfire
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
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.

------
kzhahou
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
Why would he revert his legacy? He has fought pretty hard for surveillance.

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

------
mehrzad
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
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
>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.

------
clusterbits
It almost sounds too good to be true.

~~~
lettergram
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.

~~~
Rapzid
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
They were trying to keep POTUS from sabotaging the United Stated of America.
That is what they were doing.

------
droopyEyelids
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
> _Albeit with less funding._

Latvia deploy surveillance potato! You now scared!

------
gaigepr
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.

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

~~~
jebblue
The war that was started by the Democratic Party:

[http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/2-the-vietnam-war-
top-10...](http://blogs.britannica.com/2009/01/2-the-vietnam-war-
top-10-mistakes-by-us-presidents/)

"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
Oh, well in that case I'll definitely vote for Rand Paul.

------
chucksmart
Rand supporters can expect persecution.

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

------
simplemath
Who gives a fuck, he's unelectable.

------
JulianMorrison
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.

~~~
lettergram
Could you expand?

Your comment doesn't really add anything to the conversation, expand my
knowledge, or even explain why anyone should value your opinion...

I don't mean to be rude, but it was a rather harsh comment, without much (if
any) addition to the conversation.

~~~
ikeboy
[http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/paul-repeats-baseless-
vacci...](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/paul-repeats-baseless-vaccine-
claims)

[http://religiondispatches.org/rand-paul-we-wouldnt-need-
laws...](http://religiondispatches.org/rand-paul-we-wouldnt-need-laws-if-
everyone-were-christian/)

~~~
sb057
>[http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/paul-repeats-baseless-
vacci...](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/paul-repeats-baseless-vaccine-
claims)

That quote is taken out of context. To quote the entire thing:

"The point is that I have heard of – I mean who hasn’t ever met a child who
has a profound disability and in the parents’ mind they see a connection,”
Paul said. “But I didn’t allege there is a connection. I said I heard of
people who believe there is a connection. I do think that vaccines are a good
idea. I’ve been vaccinated. My kids have been vaccinated."

>[http://religiondispatches.org/rand-paul-we-wouldnt-need-
laws...](http://religiondispatches.org/rand-paul-we-wouldnt-need-laws-if-
everyone-were-christian/)

The headlines says "Rand Paul: We Wouldn’t Need Laws If Everyone Were
Christian". Paul never said anything like that. He said that "Christian
values" like non-violence and such are good.

~~~
magicalist
> _Paul, Feb. 2: I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal
> children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines._

> _That quote is taken out of context. To quote the entire thing_

That wasn't out of context, that's him later trying to walk back his quote.
They link directly to a video of him saying what they quoted[1]

(and even ignoring that, his point that parents should essentially use their
instincts for setting a vaccination schedule is irresponsible and would make
for incredibly poor public policy)

[1]
[http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000351424](http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000351424)
at 1:53

------
MichaelCrawford
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.

~~~
DickingAround
Corporations are not as worrisome as government because their power to act on
that data is less. No company in america is going to bust down my door with
rifles or throw me in prison because I think things they don't like. The worst
they can do (assuming the government doesn't totally break down) is refuse to
do business with me. But the government can do a lot worse and have a history
of doing a lot worse.

~~~
geoffpado
No, but corporations can lean on the government to do that on their behalf.
Such as forcibly evicting a tenant from a foreclosed home [1] or confiscating
equipment from a journalist who wrote about your unreleased products [2].

[1]: [http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/10/15/florissant-police-
arr...](http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/10/15/florissant-police-arrest-man-
distraught-over-foreclosure-eviction/) [2]:
[http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-
computer...](http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computers)

~~~
DickingAround
Agreed. If the corps use the government to do their bidding that is bad. In
the case of this candidate I think the pitch is that he won't allow that
either (or at least that' me general understanding of the libertarian
position).

------
mbrownnyc
Yep.

