A New Standoff Has Emerged as the Future of Patriot Act is in Flux

a reply to: HighFive

I will discuss your post step-by-step.

challenged his republican colleagues in January on their hawkish stances against diplomacy, 2 months later signed the letter to derail diplomacy

So he called the Republicans for what they are. He then signed a letter to Iran that told them what would happen when Republicans come to power.

Nope sounds perfectly clear to me he is a honest man on his opinions. Sorry I do not get your argument.

On Russia: after Kiev fell he called for " respectful relations" . He said " some on our side are stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don't think that's a good idea" Months later he said Putin should be "punished", invoking "our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia's latest aggression"

So after the fall of Kieve he called Republicans for what they are again then ask for peace and negotiation. ( if ATS didn't want this exact scenario you can shove two oars up my ass and tell me to sail home)

Then after the annexation of the Crimea and the invasion of the Ukraine. He again said what was honestly on his mind and denounced the aggression.



No I still don't get your point?

Proposed eliminating all foreign aid, including Israel. Saying it undermined " Isreal's ability to conduct foreign policy " then the neocons lashed out at him. Then he voted to increase aid to Israel and boasted about it a statement issued by his office. Then he said he never proposed any legislation targeting Isreal's aid?

I missed your claim where he said except Israel could you provide a link?

Regardless he is against the Federal Reserve prefers free market, wants to restructure the IRS, Cut spending and aid, yet your deciding factor is Israel? I see by your omissions that you want everything at once and won't settle for anything else.

He wrote an op-Ed in the WSJ on the Islamic State crisis: "what would air strikes accomplish? Why should we choose a side?" Yet it wasn't long before he was advocating for air strikes and calling for a declaration of war against ISIS.

Coincidentally at first I had the same opinion. Leave it alone it's not our business.

Fortunately after I realized Isis was cutting the heads off of anybody that offended them. Raping and abducting women and children then killing the husbands and sons. I grew up a little past my beliefs and realized the people needed the help apparently he did the same.

strategy threatens to nullify his attempt to broaden his appeal beyond conservative voters and alienates the libertarian base and anti war voters like myself

Now I see why you are so oblivious to his intentions. What of any part of your above statements would make you think his base is conservatives?

His base should be people like those on ATS now. I ask you earlier who are you going to vote for? Or are you one of the naysayers that sits around and cries about every candidate but doesn't even exercise their vote?

a reply to: HighFive

Heres the thing about the patriot act now. It could be totally revoked and it will not stop the police and spy agencies frim doing what they are doing. They already stepped outside the law of the constitution, blatantly and with hardly a peep of resistance. These guys, they do what they want. Democracy is an illusion.

originally posted by: HighFive
And by doing so he lost the opportunity to offer amendments to a reform bill?
It doesn't make sense. Many of the coauthors of this bill want the entire patriot act gone.
This isn't about rand's integrity, like I said he wants to raise the defense budget now??

This isn't a left or right issue, this passed the HOUSE Judiciary Committee, it has support of democrats, libertarian leaning and tea party republicans in the house.

It actually does make sense. Rand Paul is a fringe candidate in the party that has the most well established base. He not only has to fight off the Democrats but billionaires like the Kochs who would rather someone like Bush be the nominee. On top of that, for better or worse he has the reputation of his dad behind him which isn't helping him get out from the fringes.

The normal political move here would be to vote to reauthorize parts of the Patriot Act and dismantle it piece by piece through reforms. That's the low risk strategy that will work over time. Paul isn't in a position to use that type of strategy. If he wants to be president he needs something notable to his name, and that means getting rid of the Patriot Act in it's entirety. He basically has to gamble on this all or nothing approach for his ambitions if he wants to be on the 2016 ticket.

a reply to: HighFive

Technology advanced to such a point that surveillance can be illegal and they will still do it.

Government has to go, violently go.

a reply to: Greathouse

I have respect for Rand Paul's consistency on issues... Before he became a republican candidate!
I don't agree with any candidate's platform 100%
But it is telling to see your positions evolved exactly as Rand Paul's have.

But I digress, I'm done talking Rand Paul, my OP was about Mitch McConnell's stalling effort to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Lots of senators and representatives want to scrap the ENTIRE Patriot act, but since that can not pass, all of them voted for the reform bill... Except Rand Paul

The patriot act is a tricky issue. This vote was the first and probably last time that Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders are on the same side of a vote..

originally posted by: coastlinekid
Bulk collection of private citizen data was going on before the Patriot Act, and it will continue whether or not the Patriot Act is renewed...

The NSA and other covert agencies do whatever they want with ZERO oversight, so this discussion is academic...

It's not academic...Without the patriot act, they cannot detain us citizens without cause indefinitely and they cannot use the evidence that they gather as it is unconstitutional...

How the patriot act itself hasn't been deemed unconstitutional is beyond me.

Jaden

If they can change this portion of the Act, I think it is significant. They will have to restore the original intent of "probable cause". I think from what I read in history, my ancestors from England had to suffer abuse from authorities with no real cause, just suspicion.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Great job by Rand Paul and other Senators that joined him. The unPatriot Act needs to go away permanently.

Senate adjourns with no clear path forward on Patriot Act

All were blocked. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — fresh off his 10.5-hour floor speech opposing the Patriot Act — led the charge against McConnell’s effort, and was joined by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.).

“We’ve entered into a momentous debate,” Paul said in objecting to McConnell’s move. “This is a debate about whether or not a warrant is a single name of a single company can be used to collect all of the phone records of all of the people in our country.”

“Our forefathers would be aghast,” he added.

originally posted by: coastlinekid
Bulk collection of private citizen data was going on before the Patriot Act, and it will continue whether or not the Patriot Act is renewed...

The NSA and other covert agencies do whatever they want with ZERO oversight, so this discussion is academic...

And if someone got wind of what they're up to, they simply lie their arses off and deny everything.

Business as usual.

Here is my 2 cents:

originally posted by: LDragonFire

"We have entered into a momentous debate," said Paul, who said he objected because his request for a guarantee of two amendments on a future bill dealing with the NSA program was denied. "This is a debate about whether a warrant with a single name of a single company can be used to collect all of the phone records of all of the people in our country with a single warrant. Our forefathers would be aghast."

Later, standing on the floor in the hushed chamber, McConnell made repeated attempts to keep the law alive. The first was to extend the NSA's authority to June 8, which was objected to by Paul. McConnell's next attempt was to extend to June 5, which was objected to by Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, an ally of Paul on the issue. An attempt by McConnell at a June 3 deadline was denied by Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-New Mexico. Finally, McConnell requested the program be extended until June 2, just one day after the law is set to expire, and Paul objected again.

Senators, who throughout the week generally thought a short-term extension would eventually be approved, appeared stunned by the swift exchanges between McConnell and the three opponents of the program. Gasps were audible.

cnn

They tried to pass the extension in the middle of the night like they originally passed this law and failed, for now.