
Sen. Rand Paul says he's suing over NSA policies - ColinWright
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/sen-paul-says-hes-suing-over-nsa-policies/
======
tokenadult
It looks like this submission with the correct spelling of the Senator's name
in the submission headline will get more traction for discussion of the
substantive issues in the story. I'll begin, and I look forward to comments by
other Hacker News participants.

United States Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon[1] and United States Senator Rand
Paul from Kentucky[2] run for election with the endorsement of different
political parties, and have plenty of other differences on issues of public
policy, but they are agreed that NSA surveillance programs need to be reviewed
for legality. That's a demonstration that there is a reasonably broad base of
support among the American public for taking a second look at how government
intelligence programs have been operating recently, and perhaps revising the
legal framework for regulating those programs. The large volume of lawsuits
connected to NSA surveillance pretty much guarantees that the Supreme Court
will consider the issue after the various trial court and intermediate
appellate court decisions in different cases have shed light on the issues.

[1] [http://www.wyden.senate.gov/](http://www.wyden.senate.gov/)

[2] [http://www.paul.senate.gov/](http://www.paul.senate.gov/)

~~~
twoodfin
_That 's a demonstration that there is a reasonably broad base of support
among the American public for taking a second look at how government
intelligence programs have been operating recently, and perhaps revising the
legal framework for regulating those programs._

I don't think that's accurate. This just happens to be one of those issues
where the traditional left/right spectrum breaks down. Paul comes from the
libertarian wing of the GOP, and Wyden is perhaps best described as a small
government liberal. Together they represent not insignificant minorities
within their own parties, but nothing like a broad bipartisan base. You
wouldn't say Paul Ryan's Medicare plan had a broad base of support just
because Wyden was associated with it (more or less, depending on whose talking
points you're reading).

------
crystaln
"Barack Obama's NSA". What a disappointment is Rand Paul. How about making
this about America instead of an unfair attack on a single president? Standing
above partisanship will pay dividends to a political career in the end. This
is the sort of crap that tells me never to support Rand Paul.

Yes, Obama could do something about the NSA, but so could Congress and so
could have Bush. This is everyone's NSA.

Flagged for being simple political posturing instead of a legitimate push for
change.

~~~
moistgorilla
You aren't supposed to flag things because they go against your political
agenda. You flag things for breaking the rules of HN. This is interesting news
and judging by the number of votes it has it is interesting for most hackers
which makes it proper news for this forum. People like you who flag things
that go against their own agenda are the reason we can't have discussions
about microsoft (these are flagged off the front page all of the time) or
anything else the hive mind doesn't find correct. Basically, I am saying you
are ruining this website.

~~~
jnbiche
Agreed. You aren't even supposed to downvote submissions because of political
disagreement. But flagging? That's ridiculous -- you're potentially wasting
moderator time because you disagree with the politics of the submission.

Flagging is meant to be used very selectively for spam and other submissions
that blatantly flout the site's guidelines.

GP, please don't misuse flagging like this again.

~~~
larrys
Not taking a side on this but if

"Flagging is meant to be used very selectively for ..."

...then there should be a pop up when someone goes to flag that says "Note:
Are you aware that flagging is meant for .... do you still want to flag??".

Many people don't know the "rules?" on HN even if they have been around for
some time. For that matter upvotes and downvotes aren't clearly defined. And
that whole "in short anything that satisfies ones curiousity" can reach far
and wide.

And doing the right thing isn't solely a RTFM either. The "FM" is not really
something that people familiarize themselves with or keep on top of.
(Commenting and reading HN isn't a job obviously.) If certain behavior needs
to be enforced (not saying it does or doesn't) then something has to be in
place ad hoc to make it more likely to happen.

------
a3n
> On his website, he's urging Americans to join the lawsuit, in his words, "to
> stop Barack Obama's NSA from snooping on the American people."

So this is mere political opportunism. Because it's not Obama's NSA, he just
happened to touch down in part of the NSA's timeline. The NSA has been, would
be and will be doing this regardless of administration or party.

~~~
twoodfin
The NSA works for the President. He can order them to stop any and all of
these programs immediately, and if they don't, start firing people until they
do.

He won't (and I don't think he should) because he thinks it would be a bad
idea from both a national security and a political standpoint.

~~~
a3n
And Rand Paul works for Rand Paul, and with the Republicans that he has chosen
to throw in with. The NSA would be in the exact same state of capability and
behavior today if a Republican were in the Whitehouse, and Paul would not be
suing.

This is about Rand Paul, using any available brick to throw at Obama, the idea
being that as Obama's fortunes fall Paul's rise.

~~~
smokeyj
Why does Paul's motivation matter? I'm just happy to see something being done.

~~~
pcloadletter
It does, because motivation decides what that "something" in "something being
done" is.

Rand Paul's party is by far the biggest supporter of NSA, TSA, and other TLAs.
If he really wanted to change things, he could start by convincing his own
party to stop fellating the NSA.

~~~
1457389
I think injunctive relief against the NSA is a goal, a "something" that most
civil liberties advocates and Rand Paul can agree on. Let it not be said that
liberals took yet another opportunity to miss an opportunity at bipartisan
reform of our executive branch's powers.

------
f_salmon
My question would be:

How should we be able to trust them ever again?

I mean, it's been shown that people like Obama an Clapper openly lie. Nobody
seems to care about that.

I'm still not sure that it's a good idea to accept the weak bone they'll throw
us to make us forget about the real issue (Obama hinted at some limitations he
might enforce).

~~~
eloff
You could trust them otherwise? You can't trust politicians, period. Their
interests and incentives don't align with ours. Your default mode should be to
distrust them, to expect them to lie when it serves their ends. Anything else
is, quite frankly, a very naive world view.

~~~
dllthomas
But that does not mean you should _accept_ it when they lie. You should expect
them to lie _when it serves their ends_ , but a refusal to accept it (coupled
with vigilance and systems that make it hard for them to get away with it)
means it more rarely serves their ends.

------
thrillgore
It'll be thrown out on "National Security" concerns which says everything that
needs to be said.

~~~
javajosh
This will be a useful lawsuit. I think that this will be a very different
lawsuit from the one the ACLU is currently pursuing. First, it is being led by
two US Senators from vastly different political perspectives, which gives it
tremendous credibility with a wide base of people.

Additionally, if the USG falls back on the national security argument yet
again, then this will damage the Obama administration's credibility even more,
and that will be a useful outcome as well.

As an aside, it's funny how quickly Obama has gone from a novelty (first black
president, exciting!) to just a very weak, unprincipled leader, and who
weakens himself even more with every backroom deal with wall street, every
promotion of Bush-era hawks, every prosecution of reporters under the
Espionage Act, and every defense of mass surveillance of Americans. My sense
is that he is under the full sway of his advisors and underlings, and he lacks
the _cajones_ to think for himself and stand up to them when they argue for
practicality over principle. Clearly our political system needs to do a better
job of selecting strong, intelligent, moral leaders, rather than just well-
spoken ones. (An interesting problem in itself, and one which I think is only
partly addressed by campaign finance reform.)

But the other lesson from this is that our system of checks and balances is
not working. This suit is an attempt to use the judicial to check the
executive. A laudable attempt to work within the system. But as you mention,
the executive is not shy about playing their trump card - keeping secrets
vital to national security - rendering a judicial check impossible. Meanwhile,
Congress is still in very poor shape, with Tea Party morons so fixated on
taxation that they ignore everything else. (Although I must admit, that in
times like these "starve the beast" does seem mighty appealing. What the
_hell_ are we doing giving Obama _$1T_ a year to play with, given his lack of
judgement and scruples? Indeed, what man or woman exists that can be trusted
with that kind of power, especially given the glaring weaknesses in our system
of checks and balances?)

We've seen some egregious, shameless use of structural weaknesses in our
system, hacks that previous generations of senators and presidents have been
deeply reluctant to use - apparently well aware of the cost of using them.
Executive use of "national security" to quash judicial check is one;
indiscriminate and constant use of filibuster to intentionally stop congress
from functioning at all, even on routine matters.

Fundamentally, political systems are designed to allow people with conflicting
views to live in peace together, and to cooperate for mutual benefit. Without
these systems, we devolve into tribes, mainly on ethnic and racial grounds,
fighting for dominance over each other. We went from democracy at the city-
state level, back to absolute monarchy, and now we're trying democracy at the
national level.

But remember this is all new ground; the US is only 238 years old. In essence,
the US is a startup, and it might fail, and it could fail catastrophically or
just kind of fizzle out. (I hope doesn't, though, because I really love the
idea of Star Fleet being HQ'd in San Francisco).

~~~
jbooth
238 years is actually decently long for a continuous system of government.
Older countries like the UK, France, Russia or China tend to actually be a
series of constitutions/monarchies/dynasties that rarely last longer than 300
years at a go. France is the 5th Republic, the Russian Federation is a little
over 20 years old, the CCCP a little over 60.

------
noarchy
The likely outcome of this is that Rand Paul will be called out on his
partisan motivations (and there will be some truth to it, I admit) in the
media, and the courts will ultimately throw out the lawsuit and thus protect
the surveillance state. We know that the president won't do anything about
this. The legislature won't, and neither will the courts. The most we could
expect is a token piece of legislation that promises oversight, but will have
stealth provisions that end up making everything worse, or provide clemency
for the NSA's various crimes.

------
jrockway
Roll eyes. If this was happening during a Republican presidency, it would be
some random Democrat suing. Even though both parties got together to make this
happen behind the scenes.

~~~
1457389
This shortsighted brand of cynicism, writ large, is exactly what is enabling
this revolving door approach to policy in this country.

~~~
chill1
This shortsighted brand of cynicism, writ large, is exactly what is enabling
this revolving door approach to policy in this country.

Yes... I repeated your comment verbatem to demonstrate that the same could be
said of your attitude.

~~~
1457389
I was making the point that cynical eye rolling at any initiative from
political competitors, despite common goals, leads to a zero sum system where
policy reflects narrowminded politics rather than shared values. That is a bad
thing, and I think we should try and nip it in the bud as much as possible.

What about my attitude is leading to the same?

------
natmaster
A few good men.

