But then there are the senators... These guys approved this activity long ago and while not all of them knew the specifics the Intelligence Committe did. They were taken into meetings where no note taking tools or anything with a battery was allowed and briefed about this.
Now that this story breaks the senate gets their panties in a twist like this is news to them. They simultaneously defend it and condemn it.
It isn't fair to make such a blanket statement about the entire Senate, I know but what I'm really getting at here is that what Rand Paul is doing doesn't strike me as sincere at all. It looks like a dog and pony show set up to make it look like someone gives a shit while they all keep getting briefed and voting for this stuff behind closed doors.
It's like set up a bunch of PR stunts to make us feel warm and funny then do the opposite while no one is paying attention. On this issue I feel like its the guys trying to get attention the most who can be trusted the least.
He has been very vocal in opposition of governmental encroachment on civil liberties during his senate term. He was, in fact, the last senator left in opposition to the extension of the Patriot Act.
I find it hard to imagine his father agreeing to do such a thing for any price.
That said, I generally disagree with many of his stances, and think you're probably right that a lot of what he does is fundamentally political.
It is really difficult to get a single person to change their mind about something. Even more difficult to get large groups to change their collective opinion.
Theoretical concerns about how a program might be abused are much less convincing to people than actual abuses. It isn't surprising to me that people who discounted the possiblity of abuse in the past might now think differently about it (politicians and public citizens alike) when presented with actual overreach or even abuse.
I don't think that is an example of hypocrisy though.
Rand Paul was one of the very few, along with Ron Wyden and Udall, to try and stop the FISA Amendments Act from being renewed last year. They voted against them (and for FISA renewal) 92-7.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyLlXBcbjo
So HE HASN'T CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT ANYTHING. This is how he was thinking all along. It's the others that supported the spying.
2006?
Try 1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON_system
Note the copyright date on this file from the Emacs distribution:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lisp/play/sp...
The most surprising thing about the current episode is simply that everybody's acting so shocked. Seriously people?
Yes, Congress has oversight authority over all of this, but in practice what they've done is assign huge powers to agencies and then just hold PR committee meetings every now and then when they think they can get votes.
As far as I know, the only legislators fully briefed on all of this were the majority/minority leaders. Perhaps the chairmen of the intelligence committees. Perhaps not. Definitely not the entire committee, and definitely not every senator who can appear in front of a microphone.
The real problem here is that Congress has abdicated its power over to agencies ran by the president. This is true in many areas. If things screw up, they can have hearings and look like heroes. If things go well, they can either ignore them or make hay. In either case, nobody really cares what the agencies are doing. It's impossible. There simply too much detail for the legislature to manage. So the rule is: never do anything that will make you appear on TV. This is what the NSA violated.
I'd just be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Congress has the power, and could use it, to straighten this entire thing out. It's not just all PR stunts. Or how about putting it this way: yes, it's PR stunts, but with enough attention on these stunts, maybe the rest of them will grow the balls necessary to actually do their jobs.
This is a good sign. I hope we see many more "PR stunts" like it.
These Congresspeople should be removed from office. They are obviously not doing their jobs. That's the one thing McCain said this morning that was correct. Congresspeople were informed... and are now feigning righteous indignation. He pointed out that there was only one vote against the Patriot Act... and that member is no longer in office.
And also, this is yet another instance of where a politician has decided that only Americans have rights. At least mention a framework (reciprocity, normalized relations, something) under which surveillance of non-Americans would be allowed instead of making it a binary "You're either one of us or one of them!"
In scenario A, a group of senators learn of a widespread domestic surveillance program. They all think it's a good idea, or at least a good enough idea that there's no reason to protest, gum up the works, or raise an alarm. When the program is accidentally disclosed to the public, they all greet widespread popular outrage with the message "we've considered this, and we want to keep it going".
In scenario B, a group of senators learn of a widespread domestic surveillance program. They all think it's a good idea, or at least a good enough idea that there's no reason to protest, gum up the works, or raise an alarm. When the program is accidentally disclosed to the public, they all respond to widespread popular outrage by sounding even more outraged than the public. There is much senatorial roaring and gnashing of teeth. Investigations are opened. All this despite the fact that the senators don't really see what the big deal is.
The highest function of an American politician is to reflect the views of the public. When the facts change, their minds must not change; that would betray the base. But when public sentiment changes (if, for example, the public were to come into possession of information that was new to it), their minds change with it.
But, yes, I believe this is probably of a piece with his drone filibuster in terms of being political theatrics.
The judicial branch approach is meant to spur action and interest on the part of citizens. It's meant to create waves. He's intentionally looking to bypass the legislative branch because the outcome there is already known.
Not blaming the man, political capital is not free.
Of course, the Court is filled with know-nothings (as in, they are anti-abstraction, so there is no such thing as a valid governing principle, such as a right), so it's all probably pretty pointless.
Perhaps you're thinking of an alternate history where the Republicans were a primarily libertarian rather than a primarily conservative party?
From what I understand, they'd have to file lawsuit with a lower court and fight the long long road up to the SC docket.
_____
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court...
"I'm glad that you're accepting responsibility. I think ultimately with your leaving that you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11. And I really mean that. Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable."
- his obsession with drastically cutting social programs at a time when so many Americans need them
- his obsession with balancing the budget when interest rates are so low and the so many things point to the problem being a lack of spending / almost nothing pointing to the deficit being a problem
- his backwards social views
I forget how easy mainstream American media goes on him. He makes some interesting points but overall he seems very much like a dogmatic and unimaginative libertarian conservative.
http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/EAS13699.pdf
The effective body is fairly direct: "The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States Government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause."
What really surprised me was that it used the word "search", rather than, say, "collect". Given that we don't know what happened to the records gathered under Stellar Wind/RAGTIME, it's possible that the activity would still be legal under Paul's bill.
I'm curious whether this choice of wording was intentional or accidental.
A reason something might come of this? Ironically, it is because the Rush Limbaugh crowd look at it as a way to get Obama, et al, while liberals are equally aghast. Never mind that it was all spearheaded by a Republican administration.
Now, as for me, I vote Green & don't like any of 'em - but it's nice to see everyone looking like they might agree on something for once.
