Rand Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act

[Anti Federalist]

What a headline. wtf collins

Was a complete party line vote. The mainstream media is running with a completely different headline... "Bill to Restrict N.S.A. Data Collection Blocked in Vote by Senate Republicans"

Collins my patience with you wears thin.

As it does with me as well.

[Anti Federalist]

The headline came straight from Rand's press release. I didn't make it up, I simply copied it.

Anything or anybody else it would have been just a non descript link.

[Keith and stuff]

Does it bother anyone that Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain also "blocked" this bill?

It would have bothered me if Cotton blocked the bill

It seems that at most only 1 Democrat in the US Senator cares about civil liberties. Shame on the Democrats!

[Brett85]

It would have bothered me if Cotton blocked the bill

Yeah, I shouldn't have included him. But he certainly would've voted against it had he been in the Senate.

[Brett85]

It seems that at most only 1 Democrat in the US Senator cares about civil liberties. Shame on the Democrats!

Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure the one Democratic Senator who voted against this did so because he thought it went too far in reigning in the NSA.

[Inkblots]

If that's the case, then why did McCain, Graham, Rubio, etc. all vote against it?

Because they disagree that there's any problem to begin with. They don't want even window dressing reforms because that would be conceding that the public outrage at the NSA is justified, which they would never admit.

[Keith and stuff]

Are you kidding? I'm pretty sure the one Democratic Senator who voted against this did so because he thought it went too far in reigning in the NSA.

I said at most I already made a smiley face in the other part of my comment, wasn't sure if it was okay to share 2 in the same post when replying to a traditional conservative.

[Brett85]

I said at most I already made a smiley face in the other part of my comment, wasn't sure if it was okay to share 2 in the same post when replying to a traditional conservative.

Ok. But I'm pretty sure that the 54 Democrats who voted for this along with Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski made a far more pro liberty vote than the 40 Republicans and one Democrat who voted against this bill because they felt it went too far in reigning in the NSA.

[Brett85]

Because they disagree that there's any problem to begin with. They don't want even window dressing reforms because that would be conceding that the public outrage at the NSA is justified, which they would never admit.

This is what Jennifer Rubin had to say about it.

h ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/11/18/a-dangerous-nsa-bill/

Senators are likely to vote soon on S. 2685, the USA Freedom Act — which should be named the Terrorist Plot Protection Act — a bill championed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) aimed at severely curtailing the National Security Agency surveillance operation. As a memo for the Republican Policy Committee explains, “This bill has never received committee consideration or a mark-up. By contrast, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence passed a bill on this topic, S. 1631, by a bipartisan vote of 11-4, after having roll call votes on nine amendments during mark-up.” Numerous officials and former officials have warned that the bill is dangerous and unwise:

In the main, according to Senator Leahy’s press release on the matter, this bill “bans” critical intelligence tools authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act. As Mike Morrell, the former acting director of the CIA and member of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, has written: if this intelligence tool had “been in place more than a decade ago, it would likely have prevented 9/11.”

The Director of National Intelligence has pointed out that metadata is the “only” type of information collected under this particular program. Metadata has nothing to do with the content of the phone call, but rather relates to the “telephone numbers dialed [or] length of calls.” . . .

In place of the current program, the bill creates a scheme that is far less agile and far more burdensome. It requires the government to seek a court order requiring the production of records from third parties, namely call detail records, related to a “specific selection term.” This is defined as “a term that specifically identifies a person, account, address, or personal device, or another specific identifier, that is used by the Government to narrowly limit the scope of tangible things sought to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, consistent with the purpose for seeking the tangible things.” Its practical effect is to make it more difficult for the government to seek call detail records from third parties, where the Constitution does not legally require such a burden.

Republicans on the intelligence committee have warned colleagues about the bill’s threats to necessary intelligence-gathering. And former attorney general Mike Mukasey and former CIA director Michael Hayden likewise argue:

Nothing in the bill requires the telephone companies to preserve the metadata for any prescribed period. . . .

The bill’s imposition of the warrant requirement on the NSA would be more burdensome than what any assistant U.S. attorney must do to get metadata in a routine criminal case, which is simply to aver that the information is needed in connection with a criminal investigation—period.

Proponents say this change is necessary to allay fears that the NSA could use telephone metadata to construct an electronic portrait of an American citizen’s communications, and determine whether that person has, say, consulted a psychiatrist, or called someone else’s spouse. However, only 22 people at the NSA are permitted access to metadata, and only upon a showing of relevance to a national-security investigation, and they are barred from any data-mining whatsoever even in connection with such an investigation. . . .

[T]he nearly uniform success of the government before the FISA court is due both to the government’s careful restraint in presenting applications, and to pushback from the court itself—which results in the amendment of applications. Even when the government applies for wiretaps or search warrants in ordinary criminal cases there is no advocate opposing the application.

Nonetheless, this new bill would establish a permanent advocate appointed by the court to oppose the government’s applications before the FISA court. This provision has elicited an extraordinary written objection from a former presiding judge of the FISA court. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates points out that the presence of such an advocate, who cannot conceivably be aware of all the facts, would simply add to the burdens of the court and could wind up sacrificing both national security and privacy.

This bill redefines the FISA court, which was never meant to be an adversary tribunal and was imposed simply as an added safeguard in the 1970s, without regard to its history or its purpose. Worse, it is a three-headed constitutional monster: It is a violation of both the separation of powers principle and the Constitution’s appointments clause by having judges rather than the president appoint the public advocate, and then it has the advocate litigate against the Justice Department when both executive offices are supposed to be controlled by the president.

It is a rotten, destructive response in search of a problem. And for self-described constitutional purists, this bill should be an outrage, not a solution.

As you may recall, an independent panel appointed to review the program found zero abuses, perhaps why Obama keeps reauthorizing it. Unlike Iran sanctions, however, there is no sign the administration wants to dispatch Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to prevent a vote on a bill at odds with current policy. To the contrary, administration officials have coughed up their approval, all the while noting that it risks damaging U.S. national security. (How they can be “comfortable” with the bill “even as they conceded that the bill may have ‘additional impacts that we will be able to identify only after we start to implement the new law’” is unfathomable.)

Nevertheless, we should be delighted to see the Senate weigh in on the measure. Who in that body would risk disrupting a successful, abuse-free program at a time we are worried about hundreds of foreign jihadists plotting to return to their home countries to murder innocents? We know where the far left of the Democratic Party stands, but what about the self-described moderates? Where does Hillary Clinton really stand?

It also can be a clarifying moment for Republicans. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has railed against the program, sued the administration to stop it and falsely implied it allows unrestricted listening in on our calls, claims the bill does not go far enough. Think about that. When it comes to anti-terror surveillance, he is to the left of Obama and Leahy. So much for his claim to be a mainstream Republican on national security.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) – who has also dabbled in anti-surveillance hysteria and seeks to grab some of the far-right presidential primary vote — is supporting the bill along with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and the American Civil Liberties Union. He should explain why Hayden and Mukasey are wrong. Why should mainstream Republicans imagine he understands any better than Rand Paul the necessity of data collection to fight our real enemy, the jihadists (not the federal government)? What does he think is so broken in a program thoroughly reviewed for abuses that would justify hamstringing our intelligence collection? (Both this stance and his groundless assertion that airpower alone can win the war against the Islamic State suggest he is closer to Paul than to the pro-defense Republicans, despite months of tough-sounding speeches.)

By contrast, former ambassador to the United Nations and potential presidential candidate John Bolton says, “As the level and violence of terrorist attacks is rising worldwide, this is precisely the worst time to impose further restrictions on U.S. Intelligence gathering capabilities.”

Republicans should be looking for officials and candidates who are brave enough to support an effective and critical program. Frankly, a Republican seeking the presidency — or election or reelection to the Senate for that matter — should be soundly rejected if he chooses to sacrifice national security in order to play to the fears of the public and posture for the votes of paranoid libertarians. The GOP and the country need someone to reverse Obama’s lackadaisical national security posture, not double down on it and not wilt when the mainstream media distorts and exaggerates the threat to our civil liberties. That would be standing up and leading.

[economics102]

We have to stand our ground at some point. The NSA spying is very unpopular, and Rand will try to connect the dots from the NSA spying to the PATRIOT Act in the public consciousness, which is what needs to happen.

[surf]

I heard Amash say that this bill, that started out pretty killer and had Justin Amash as one of the original cosponsors, was so butchered when it got out of the house that he was hopeful it would fail. he voted against this. Rand can just follow Amash' lead on items born in the people's house.

originally it was worthy of the title "freedom act." when it got to the senate it was an oxymoron.

Rand did the right thing.

[anaconda]

Does it bother anyone that Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain also "blocked" this bill?

I'm assuming that most of the "nays" were because the bill did not go far enough in advancing the police state.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because they disagree that there's any problem to begin with. They don't want even window dressing reforms because that would be conceding that the public outrage at the NSA is justified, which they would never admit.

Bingo

These people can never acknowledge even the slightest flaw (no matter how trivial) in the national security state, because public confidence in the whole thing rests on the perceived omniscience and omnipotence of the state. Strong-men have to hide their imperfections from the public: nobody can know FDR is a cripple, Kim Jong Il never gets the hiccups, Putin wrestles bears, etc.

[presence]

So the bill was originally built to do two things:


Reign in the NSA, including their collection of Metadata
AND
Renew the Patriot Act

As it was voted on... the first notion was grossly watered down and the bill was essentially just a renewal of the Patriot Act.


However you got 4 opposing Bootlegger and Baptist coalitions voting:

YEA = Renew the Patriot Act at the expense of moderate Reforms
or
YEA = Support moderate NSA Reforms, unfortunately renew PA to do so.

NAY = Do not renew the Patriot Act, reforms inadequate.
or
NAY = Not willing to make any NSA Reforms




The words convoluted, byzantine, and circuitous come to mind.


Essentially nothing happened. Stalemate.

[milgram]

Marcy Wheeler digs pretty deep into these surveillance bills, so here's her bullet points for why she opposes it. Click the link for more details.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2014/11/1...a-freedom-act/

As you may remember, I don’t support USAF. Here’s a summary of why.

1 - No one will say how the key phone record provision of the bill will work

2 - USAF negotiates from a weak position and likely moots potentially significant court gains

3 - USAF’s effects in limiting bulk collection are overstated

4 - USAF would eliminate any pushback from providers

5 - USAF may have the effect of weakening existing minimization procedures

6 - USAF’s transparency provisions are bull$#@!

7 - Other laudable provisions — like the Advocate — will easily be undercut

On the downside, Feinstein/Chambliss have competing legislation which McConnell actually favors.

[thoughtomator]

Collins, don't try to spin us. You owe us more respect than that. Save it for the idiot crowd in the media.

[Feelgood]

Wow. Cruz voted yes?

Both of my Senators voted no??

WTF is this Twilight Zone episode Im watching!??!

[idiom]

If Rand can turn voting for the Patriot bill into an election losing event, then he doesn't need to win a vote to kill it as it will sunset itself. If the senate gets messy enough we could run out the clock on it.

[Todd]

So the bill was originally built to do two things:


Reign in the NSA, including their collection of Metadata
AND
Renew the Patriot Act

As it was voted on... the first notion was grossly watered down and the bill was essentially just a renewal of the Patriot Act.


However you got 4 opposing Bootlegger and Baptist coalitions voting:

YEA = Renew the Patriot Act at the expense of moderate Reforms
or
YEA = Support moderate NSA Reforms, unfortunately renew PA to do so.

NAY = Do not renew the Patriot Act, reforms inadequate.
or
NAY = Not willing to make any NSA Reforms




The words convoluted, byzantine, and circuitous come to mind.


Essentially nothing happened. Stalemate.

Yep. That is what it is.
But I guess that stalemate is the first step in slamming the breaks on the runaway train. Now if we could just get the sucker into reverse.

Collins, don't try to spin us. You owe us more respect than that. Save it for the idiot crowd in the media.

This^

[economics102]

This is an unfortunate position Rand has been put in but I suspect he'll turn it to his favor and use it to draw more attention to the Patriot Act.

[Stallheim]

This is a great grass roots opportunity for some subterfuge: rather than accuse No voters of doing it for the wrong reasons we should get the message out through various channels that they should be celebrated for their courage in opposing Patriot Act renewal. When they see that they are on the side of a wave of American popularity they might flip when the bill to renew comes up again.

[Stallheim]

As a bonus, if they don't, we can have it proclaimed that they are inconsistent pawns of the corporate elite, let them defend against that! This drags them out from under the rotten log.

[Brett85]

I heard Amash say that this bill, that started out pretty killer and had Justin Amash as one of the original cosponsors, was so butchered when it got out of the house that he was hopeful it would fail. he voted against this. Rand can just follow Amash' lead on items born in the people's house.

originally it was worthy of the title "freedom act." when it got to the senate it was an oxymoron.

Rand did the right thing.

Leahy's bill isn't the same as the bill that passed the house. It's stronger than that bill, which is why Rubio, McCain, Graham, etc. all voted against it.

[No1butPaul]

Mike Lee??? That's surprising to me, as is Cruz, since they both stood with Rand in the past.

[Brett85]

Mike Lee??? That's surprising to me, as is Cruz, since they both stood with Rand in the past.

Again, Lee and Cruz's votes were far more pro liberty than those who voted against this bill for the reason that it went too far in reigning in the NSA. Marco Rubio got up on the Senate floor and talked about how we were all going to get killed by ISIS if this bill passed.

[presence]

Collins, don't try to spin us. You owe us more respect than that. Save it for the idiot crowd in the media.

Not every thread posted at RPF is addressed to the choir. To some degree this site is a liberty news portal to the general public.

Rand Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act

...makes good sound bytes.

[jmdrake]

I predict ultimately the Patriot Act will be extended and the NSA will not be reformed. I'm in unsure if this was a good move. Time will tell.

[Lucille]

The comsotarians whine that he was letting the perfect be the enemy of the "merely better," as if any of it would stop anyway.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/19/se...he-national-se

Paul said immediately after the vote that he “felt bad” about his vote against the motion.

“They probably needed my vote,” he said, opposing Leahy’s bill because it would extend the sunset provisions for the laws authorizing surveillance. “It’s hard for me to vote for something I object to so much.”

Although his single vote would not have been enough to open up debate, Paul should nevertheless have heeded the insight of the developer of radar Robert Alexander Watson-Watt who explained, "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes." I am no parliamentarian, but it appears that under Senate rules because Paul voted with the prevailing side, he could move to have the Senate reconsider the bill, although it seems unlikely that he will do so.

Paul and the rest of his fellow citizens may well come to rue the day that he allowed the perfect to get in the way of the merely better.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com...m-is-dead.html

As a result of the recent NSA/surveillance stories, there is much debate about the NSA and its massive spying apparatus. But as the existence of InfraGard shows, the NSA is only the beginning of what should concern us. In fact, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, but it's better to face the truth as fully as we can, if the NSA ceased to exist today, it would not make any appreciable difference in the surveillance activities of the United States government.
[...]
As I already noted, you could eliminate the NSA entirely this very minute, and it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference. But the heightened focus on the NSA, while ignoring all the other agencies and programs involved in similar and even identical activities, leads directly to the "solution" that will make the State writhe in ecstasy. Congress will have some hearings, and they will provide for some "oversight" and "accountability," and most people, including most of the State's critics, will herald the great triumph of "the people" and "democracy." Meanwhile, the State will continue doing exactly what it was doing before.

http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/0...nowden-effect/

[Occam's Banana]

The words convoluted, byzantine, and circuitous come to mind.

When you have some "authoritarians" united with some "libertarians" in opposing something (the former because it "goes too far" and the latter because it "doesn't go far enough") - and at the same time you have other "authoritarians" united with other "libertarians" in supporting the very same thing (the former because it "goes adequately far" and the latter because it "doesn't go too far") ... well, then you know that you have reached the utter and droolingly vacuous wit's end of politics ...

And that's not even considering the fact that you could simply "reverse the polarity" of the "goes far" rhetoric and it would STILL amount to exactly the same thing (for example, "authoritarians" in opposition to this bill could say that it "doesn't go far enough" and "libertarians" in opposition could say that it "goes too far") ...

SMGDH ... but what else can you expect from such a grotesque mish-mash of "X steps forward, Y steps backward" stuffed into the same bag? ... it's like a Trojan Horse for everybody ...

[Brian4Liberty]

The official press release from Rand's office:

Sen. Paul Blocks the Renewal of Patriot Act
‘One step closer to restoring liberty’
Nov 18, 2014

Earlier this evening, Sen. Rand Paul voted against further consideration of the USA Freedom Act as it currently extends key provisions of the Patriot Act until 2017. Sen. Paul led the charge against the Patriot Act extension and offered the following statement:

“In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”
...
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244