Patriot Act Spy Powers To Expire As Rand Paul Blocks USA Freedom Act Vote

Saturday, we mentioned that three major spying powers that the U.S. government has exercised under the Patriot Act might be nixed, as the sections of the Act granting authority to use them expires. The Daily Dot reports that Senator (and presidential contender) Rand Paul today used Senate rules to block a bill which would have extended those powers, which means that as of midnight Sunday on the U.S. east coast, sections 206, 207 and 215 of the Patriot Act will have expired. Says the Daily Dot's article, linked by reader blottsie: The reform bill, which the House passed before leaving town for a week-long recess, would end the government's bulk collection of Americans' phone records under the Patriot Act's controversial Section 215 but leaves the other two provisions intact. ... Sunday's procedural meltdown was the second narrow defeat for the USA Freedom Act. In a late-night session on Friday, May 22, the bill fell three votes short of an initial procedural step after [Senate Majority Leader] McConnell lobbied hard against it. The Senate's failure to meet its deadline was a blow to President Obama, who on Friday had warned lawmakers that the country would be vulnerable if the USA Freedom Act did not pass.

Comments

I'm afraid! Please send hugs!

[TheRealHocusLocus]

I am so jittery... as the clock strikes Midnight I will no longer bask in the protective glow of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. I cannot fall asleep without the reassuring sound of telephone records being gathered. Surely something awful will happen tonight or tomorrow. Maybe I will try to organize the neighborhood for a continuous vigil until the Act is restored. But first, I'll just turn on the radio and catch some news...

Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs!

[rtb61]

Considering the anthrax attack that was used to promote the Patriot Act in the first place, you have very good reason to be afraid. People who want the power provided by those corrupt laws will be more than willing to do quite extreme things to get that power back.

Re:I'm afraid! Please send hugs!

[Mostly a lurker]

You are right to be concerned. Only Saturday, a young female student on a United flight tried to lay her hands on a can of cola. The flight attendant had been alerted to the danger (no doubt as a result of the Patriot Act provisions) and prevented the woman arming herself, storming the cockpit and flying the plane into the rebuilt World Trade Center. Who will monitor the intentions of these desperate terrorists if the Patriot Act provisions lapse?

Seriously, the administration would prefer the provisions are renewed as it reduces the number of acts they carry out illegally. In reality, however, they will continue doing what they like, as they have been for decades. No prosecution for their illegal actions is possible, because the evidence of wrongdoing is classified for security reasons.

Re: I'm afraid! Please send hugs!

[Mostly a lurker]

My post was intended as flippant, but I do know the full story.

The woman was treated normally by the United flight attendant. Rude service by United is the norm, and excusing it by claims that it is necessary for security par for the course. However, the argument that a young woman armed with a cola could be dangerous was pretty ridiculous. The better airlines provide, not only cans of soda, but even small bottles of wine. I am unaware that these have ever been used for terrorist purposes.

She was upset, posted about it on her Facebook page, and responded to media enquiries when the story went viral. Was there any Islamophobia? I think at least one of the passengers telling her to "shut the f--k up" was probably motivated by an antipathy to Islam. I certainly would not speak that way to any young woman.

You are quite right that the story has been blown out of proportion. That said, many people exhibit a quite irrational fear and hatred of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are normal folk whose dress code may or may not be old fashioned.

RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Noah Haders]

he's got my vote.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[wxxy___]

Versus everybody else who I either disagree with on everything flat out, or they pay lip service and then never do anything or do the opposite of what they claimed to begin with.
Not like any Presidents I know.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[0123456]

The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.

True. Actually requiring Congress to declare war before you can attack another country? Ridiculous. Term limits for Congress? Absurd. Cutting taxes? What could he be thinking?

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[blue trane]

We need Sanders to use the same tactics to block any Republican cuts to Social Security.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[NormAtHome]

That's my problem with politicians in general; they makes promises and say anything they need to in order to get elected and then do a complete 180 turn around and once in office break every promise they made to the people who elected them.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[ganjadude]

who modded this interesting??? should be flamebait.

if you are going to make such a claim, please, back it up with facts.

Last i checked wanting to end the war on drugs, work on REAL civil rights reforms, and balance the budget were not crazy ideas

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[peragrin]

Rand Paul isnt for any of those things. They are sound bites.

Look at his budget proposals some day. They paint a different picture

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Alomex]

Except that it hasn't worked anywhere, anyplace. But yeah, aside from that it works.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[PopeRatzo]

Representative Democracy. The worst system ever devised, except for all the others.

You think we have a "representative democracy" here in the US?

Representative of whom? Do you believe this government represents you? Do you think it represents the will of the people?

https://www.opensecrets.org/pa...

https://www.opensecrets.org/ov...

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Brulath]

Term limits for Congress? Absurd. Cutting taxes? What could he be thinking?

Term limits aren't necessarily a good thing, as they're going to encourage politicians to look for places to be employed once they're finished with their term (as a primary focus for the entire term). They also reinforce short-term thinking, as the individual politicians won't need to deal with the fallout of their decisions if they have no chance to be re-elected. Finally, the networking and experience required to get anything done in any political environment takes quite a while to build up – if you replace people at too high a rate they'll never reach the efficiency stage, which may or may not be a bad thing depending on your views.

Most simple solutions are horribly flawed, which is often the main reason they haven't been employed previously. Cutting taxes isn't likely to help much with paying off the 21 trillion dollar debt, for example, unless new taxes on richer people are introduced.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[beelsebob]

To be fair, the cutting taxes one is pretty insane.

The country can't afford to provide health care for everyone. It can't afford to look after its veterans. It can't afford to keep its freeways in serviceable condition (in fact, in such bad shape that the bridges are collapsing!).

America doesn't need tax cuts. It needs tax hikes, and military spending cuts.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[blue trane]

Debt is a distraction. The country's had a debt since the very first administration, and conservatives have been predicting imminent doom and gloom every year. Except it hasn't happened, each generation's standard of living increases, grandkids are better off than their grandparents. Reagan proved deficits don't matter, after campaigning against Carter's $68 billion deficit then raising that by a factor of four.

The private sector thrives on debt and money creation. Government should too. If government spends money financed at zero cost through the Fed to improve the General Welfare, why would unexpected, runaway inflation occur? But as a hedge, index all incomes to inflation to eliminate any inflation tax. Indexation guarantees purchasing power does not decrease.

In conclusion, Rand Paul's economics are feudal, archaic. We can and should spend more on social services, such as a Basic Income.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Alomex]

Spending cuts and tax cuts worked well? Sorry but you are wrong. Spending cuts and minor tax increases have outperformed the former every where.

Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[blue trane]

Deficit spending is how the private sector thrives. Government can and should create money to provide for the General Welfare in the form of a Basic Income. You are still free not to opt in, and to conduct your finances as you see fit; but there is no reason to force everyone else to conform to your feudal economics.

Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[lgw]

Sorry, dude, you have to put down the pipe and work for a living. There's no escaping the working for a living part, long-term. All we have is all we make, and so the fewer people work, the less we have - no games with money can change that. The best thing the government can do is provide incentives for people to work hard and be successful, by not punishing that. Tax everyone the same; don't create a special hated class of people who are taxed more. We shouldn't be spending more that we're all willing to pay in taxes, whether that's less or more than today - this game of "spend more and tax him over there" cannot survive much longer.

Re: RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Samantha Wright]

The summary is misleading; the act will probably pass on Tuesday, and the provisions will be restored. It's depressing how completely dishonest this story is.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Alomex]

In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state.

To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below.

So what you say might sound very logic and obvious to you, but is contrary to the facts. I.e. the quintessential definition of truthiness: it ought to be right because it sounds right, facts be damned.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Alomex]

Except that we aren't bringing any more money... minor little detail you left out in your post.

While the Laffer curve undoubtedly exists, every single tax-cut experiment in the last 30 years in the USA suggests we are already to the left of the peak, and hence lower taxes simply means lower revenues.

This should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention to economic data rather than GOP talking points.

p.s. In fact this was a surprise to myself and many other economists. They had guesstimated the peak of the Laffer curve around a top marginal rate of 40-60%, now all evidence suggests is around 75%.

p.p.s. I'm opposed to a marginal rate of 75%, but not because lowering it would mean increased revenues: facts show that it doesn't.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[BronsCon]

Maintain a wise diet, exercise moderately, get laid off, then get hit by a bus. And live. Then, be glad the government was there to pick you up.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[serviscope_minor]

what do you mean "we should spend more on basic income"???

are you saying i should just quit my job because the government ( you) will pay for it? THANK YOU!!! ive been waiting for this day for so long!!!!

Yes, basically. Firstly, why not? It will provide enough for basic food and basic shelter but little in the way of luxury. We are rich enough collectively to make sure everyone gets to eat and have a roof over their heads.

Secondly, this is more or less already the case.

The thing is if you have a basic income, you can also scrap a whole bunch of laws. Minimum wage, tax credits, food stamps, all that can just go in the bin. The basic income is more transparent and simpler. It also doesn't require vulnerable people to dealwith vast amounts of government buearacracy.

Finally it subsidises rich companies less. At the moment many large companies etc don't pay a living wage, so people need to get employed and then get some form if income support. Oh and people are trapped living paycheck to paycheck so the companies can more or less be as evil as they like. Once people have a basic income, they have the choice whether to sell labour for that price and also have much more freedom in negotiations.

Most of the arguments seem win-win to me.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[shutdown -p now]

In conclusion, Rand Paul's economics are feudal, archaic.

So they are, but the president does not unilaterally decide economic policy.

A Paul in the office would primarily mean two things. First, he'd dismantle as much of the executive as he could within the boundaries that are set out by the Congress (just to give one example in addition to this whole NSA thing - he could legitimately, by executive order, remove cannabis from all DEA schedules, effectively legalizing it on federal level). And second, he would veto most Congress bills, so only supermajority bills could pass. I suspect that budgets would ultimately fall into that category.

I'm somewhere between liberal and libertarian with a dash of socialism, personally (e.g. I support universal basic income guarantee), but I'd be willing to tolerate Paul's cookery on economic issues if this means a major advance in individual rights, more sane foreign policy, and further democratization of government (through electoral reform and decentralization). Hell, if US stops waging endless wars overseas, that alone will have a greater positive effect on the country's economy than any fiddling with taxes.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[IamTheRealMike]

In real life, as opposed to in your head, evidence suggests that to the contrary, what is better for everyone is a rather expansive state. To wit, in most indicators, including wealth, large state countries such as western Europe, Canada and Japan are at least comparable and often better than the USA, while small state countries such as Somalia or Haiti are much below

By that logic Greece should be paradise.

Right now most big, rich, western countries with high quality of life are supporting themselves either via oil or via debt. That is not sustainable, which is why many European countries are either significantly cutting back the state or being told they really need to by various creditors. Balanced budgets as in Germany are sustainable, but Germany is also a fair bit poorer than people realise: wages have hardly gone up there for many years.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[CrimsonAvenger]

The problem is that a few states have actually refused to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, and most purportedly "states rights" proponents in this debate supported them in that (I have no idea where Rand stands on it personally).

Irrelevant. Refusing to recognize valid marriages from another State is clearly unconstitutional, and grounds for the Supremes to bitchslap the State(s) in question. Article IV, Section 1 is pretty clear....

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Alomex]

Greece is running a primary surplus right now. So try again.

Spain and Ireland were running large surpluses when the crisis hit. Reality is that being in the doldrums had little to do with large/small state and all to do with a good/bad banking system.

That is not sustainable,

Says you. Meanwhile here, in the real world big state countries like Canada, France and Germany seem to sustain their debts without problems.

Yes creditors asked for a smaller state. What else is news? Yet their interest rates are extremely low, which shows that at the end of the day said creditors are happy with the status quo.

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[Rockoon]

While the Laffer curve undoubtedly exists, every single tax-cut experiment in the last 30 years in the USA suggests we are already to the left of the peak, and hence lower taxes simply means lower revenues.

Do you really think that its moral for the Federal government to maximize its revenue?

...maybe you do?

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[cdrudge]

So you're deciding your vote on a single issue that will halt surveillance for all of a day and a half?

Re:RAND PAUL REVOLUTION

[BronsCon]

The people voted for a president who campaigned for health insurance and passed a bill forcing people to buy health insurance.

If you can afford it. Otherwise, everyone who can afford it is subsidizing it for everyone who can't.

Additionally, you can live off of minimum wage. It just means having a budget, roommates and not going out and running up a crazy bar tab, or eating out all the time.

Minimum wage, part time 16hr/wk. That's all some people can get (and a second job is out of the question because they want open availability, which the first job prevents them from having). That's $6032/yr gross, $5143/yr net assuming standard deduction. Show me a budget that allows a single person to survive on $429/mo (I rounded it up to make it easier on you). Be sure to include city and state, so I can know *where* a person can survive on that budget.

Sure, they can find a room somewhere for $150/mo, ride the bus to and from work (4x 4 hour shifts is 8 trips per week, 34 or 36 trips per month depending on how the days fall so we'll average that to 35) at $2.50 per trip that's $87.50 per month. They need clothes, one outfit per day for two weeks to minimize laundry costs, plus an outfit to wear for laundry, so 15 outfits, replaced every 6 months as clothes do wear out, so an average of 1.25 outfits per month at a cost of $20 per pair of pants and $15 per shirt if we're going cheap, which comes to $43.75 per month. We're already up to $281.25 and we still have to do laundry and eat. Ever been to a laundromat? 2 weeks worth of clothes costs $10 to wash, 26 loads per year, that's 2.16 load per month, $21.60 per month for laundry brings us up to $302.85, leaving $126.15 for food. That miiiiiiiiiiight be doable in some cities, but not in most. And we never actually got that 16/hr per week job because guess what? We can't afford a phone for them to call us on. And if we did somehow manage to land a job anyway, we've lost it within the first month because we can't afford a phone for them to call us on to tell us they need us to come in. Or we've wasted bus far (2 trips) because they couldn't call us to tell us they actually didn't need us that day; on top of now not getting paid for the day.

Yes, a budget and roommates solve everyone's problems.

so what

[slashdice]

Just a couple weeks ago, a US Court of Appeals ruled that the NSA was violating the law. It doesn't matter what's legal and what's not, they'll just do it. c.f. "above the law".

Re:so what

[amiga3D]

At least now the pretense will be gone.

Re:so what

[TheGratefulNet]

what? "the romans, they go to the house??"

Is this a win? I can't tell...

[Okian Warrior]

The Huffington Post was live updating the proceedings, and said this:

USA Freedom Act advances 77-17

In a stunning reversal from last week’s drama, the USA Freedom Act was passed by a vote of 77-17. The bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly several weeks ago will now move forward and is likely to receive a final vote on Tuesday.

The bill fell three votes short of the needed supermajority to advance last week but with the clock ticking on controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, supporters of NSA surveillance thought that the proposed reforms were better than letting the program expire entirely.

Rand Paul stated that the Freedom Act will likely get passed on Tuesday.

Wait... did we win or not? Isn't this just a 2-day repreive?

Re:Is this a win? I can't tell...

[Moof123]

At least it becomes a new bill rather than a reauthorization. The stink that sticks to the yes voters is far worse for passing a new bill rather than just reauthorizing someones elses dirty work.

Re:Is this a win? I can't tell...

[NoKaOi]

At least it becomes a new bill rather than a reauthorization. The stink that sticks to the yes voters is far worse for passing a new bill rather than just reauthorizing someones elses dirty work.

Like how the stink stuck with those who voted for the original PATRIOT act? Oh wait, no it didn't.

Wait until midnight

[fustakrakich]

If it dies, it's because they already have something to replace it. We will be informed on a 'need to know' basis. They will decide when we 'need to know'.

Useful technique

[Okian Warrior]

So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy.

That's a useful technique - agreeing or conceding the immediate issue, while making nebulous unsupported statements about everything else. Look to see this for the next year or so. "I agree with him on this issue, but everything else is crazy".

...problem is, that "agreeing on this one issue" seems to happen a lot. Like, for most issues.

Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

Re:Useful technique

[NoKaOi]

Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

Bernie Sanders, who voted against the PATRIOT act and its reauthorization.

Re:Useful technique

[Okian Warrior]

Who do you recommend as an alternative? (And did they, by any chance, support the Patriot act?)

Bernie Sanders, who voted against the PATRIOT act and its reauthorization.

Voting against the Patriot act was a good thing, but everything else Bernie Sanders he stands for is just batshit crazy.

Re:Useful technique

[I'm New Around Here]

Did everyone else hear the WHOOOSH over this guy's head?

Forward emails and calls until fixed?

[bsharitt]

In order to keep America safe, does anyone know where I can send my emails and phone records to until this whole misunderstanding is resolved? I'd hate for a terrorist to get me because my information was private.

Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed?

[93 Escort Wagon]

In order to keep America safe, does anyone know where I can send my emails and phone records to until this whole misunderstanding is resolved? I'd hate for a terrorist to get me because my information was private.

Don't worry - they're almost certainly still doing it. They just won't be bothering with any FISA rubber stamps or procedural filings.

I mean, come on. They obviously weren't concerned even with the Constitution up to this point in time; why would they start worrying about more ephemeral congressional votes now?

Re:Forward emails and calls until fixed?

[rgbatduke]

Well, if you have anything really juicy in there -- a bit of porn, some records of your cocaine transactions, maybe some private account numbers and your social security number, you can always send them to me. I'll make sure there are no terrorists hiding under your bed.

And of course, I'm completely trustworthy.

My address:

John Doe
Secret Agent for U.N.C.L.E.
Hiding Under Your Bed (but I'm a nice guy, not a terrorist, and there isn't any more room under here)

In fact, don't bother sending them. I've already got them. And BTW, you snore...

Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

This would have a lot more meaning if the NSA had anything to fear if they break the law.

Re:Not usually an (R) but...

[ganjadude]

couldnt be any worse than the current "progressive" and previous neocon

Don't get too excited

[damn_registrars]

The Patriot Act was in the end largely an expansion of existing government powers. This did not create the CIA, FBI, or NSA. They will still exist even if the Patriot Act is not extended at all, and they will still have a lot of power to spy on Americans. In the end, this is a great move of political posturing, but it doesn't really help us as much as a certain presidential candidate wants us to believe.

Reforms... are they positive?

[rsborg]

The Huffington Post was live updating the proceedings, and said this:

USA Freedom Act advances 77-17

In a stunning reversal from last week’s drama, the USA Freedom Act was passed by a vote of 77-17. The bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly several weeks ago will now move forward and is likely to receive a final vote on Tuesday.

The bill fell three votes short of the needed supermajority to advance last week but with the clock ticking on controversial provisions of the Patriot Act, supporters of NSA surveillance thought that the proposed reforms were better than letting the program expire entirely.

Rand Paul stated that the Freedom Act will likely get passed on Tuesday.

Wait... did we win or not? Isn't this just a 2-day repreive?

Please note this [1] is one of the bills being proposed (by the sitting Senate Intelligence Chair, no less):

The bill Senate Intelligence Chair Richard Burr released last Friday is bad enough for the way it expanded the existing illegal dragnet. I argued here Burr’s bill would give the Intelligence Community everything they lost in 2009 and 2011. [...]

So think about it - is this just a 2 day reprieve or 2 days so they can rollback more restrictions and make things worse than they are now?

[1] https://www.emptywheel.net/201...

I feel proud as an American!

[Taco Cowboy]

I have been an American citizen for over 30 years ever since I took my oath back in the 1980's

This is the day I can say that I feel proud as an American for at the very least the politicians in Washington D.C., for once, are doing something that the PEOPLE want them to do --- to kill that goddamn draconian bill that allows the government of the United States of America to act much like a totalitarian regime

I think I am not the only one in America who will keep note of who is voting to keep American under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill

Re:I feel proud as an American!

[fortfive]

. . . under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill

Wait, is this sarcasm? You're gunning for the funny mod, right?

Because, A., the PATRIOT Act (writing the word "patriot" in reference to these orwellian measures makes my stomach turn, but that's not what I'm talking about here) was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., and passed under their stern, wagging fingers, and, B., Obama operates from the White House, whereas it is the Congress whose building is Capitol Hill.

I'm confused because Paragraph 2 is an accurate representation of the current state of affairs. I mean, Obama is a far sight short of his promises, much like most Democrats these days, and totally wrong on this issue, but he is way less of a totalitarian/authoritarian than CRB executive was. And, at least one or two of his policies are meant for the benefit of the Plebs.

Re:I feel proud as an American!

[fustakrakich]

:-) Which PEOPLE are you talking about?

"If you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?" said Tom Charlton, 64, a retired sales training manager for a tire company, who was first in line at a book-signing with Paul in Davenport. "If this can stop one attack, it's worth infringing on legal citizens' rights."...

"I don't want the mall to get bombed because they didn't get the information they needed," said [Vivian] Martin...

Sally Cram, 62, said after leaving a town hall meeting with Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) that she supports the NSA program because "I'm a person who believes our government tells us the truth."...

These are the American citizens who keep this stuff alive, because they believe... It doesn't matter if Rand Paul is occasionally right. Being "right" has very little to do with anything.

Re:I feel proud as an American!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been an American citizen for over 30 years ever since I took my oath back in the 1980's

This is the day I can say that I feel proud as an American for at the very least the politicians in Washington D.C., for once, are doing something that the PEOPLE want them to do --- to kill that goddamn draconian bill that allows the government of the United States of America to act much like a totalitarian regime

I think I am not the only one in America who will keep note of who is voting to keep American under the dictatorship of Obama - and we will make sure that all the supporters of dictator Obama will get booted from the Capitol Hill

Blame Obama? Thats the punchline to this joke of yours? It isn't funny, because it is predictable and wrong , and at this point.. pointless.

I am proud to be an American, but for real reasons, not because of the thinly veiled and predictable power grabbing and posturing going on in the Senate leading up to the 2016 election cycle. Let's break down your delusions here one by one so we can tease apart the cluster-fsck of convoluted pseudo-logic that comprises your post:

I have been an American citizen for over 30 years ever since I took my oath back in the 1980's

I take from this you mean to imply that you are an immigrant and trying to position yourself as someone who has an outside perspective to the "unwashed masses" of us who have elected Obama not once but twice. Welcome to America! You do realize that the people you are talking up, namely the Republican party have repeatedly tried and tried again to make it so that people like you cannot immigrate to the US, to close down the borders and make it so that America is a "closed society" which goes against the principles of the founding fathers and the very principles that have repeatedly made this country a world power, namely it's diversity. This makes me start to doubt the truth of your claim of being an immigrant, the contradiction of ideas you present paints the larger picture that you are just saying this to try to make it look like you are one who "should" be a supporter of Obama, who has, despite being undermined by the Republican controlled Congress and Senate, worked around the clock in his term to keep America diverse and open and a free society.. but this is just the beginning of the mess of conflicting ideas you present here.. we continue with your convoluted points...

This is the day I can say that I feel proud as an American for at the very least the politicians in Washington D.C., for once, are doing something that the PEOPLE want them to do --- to kill that goddamn draconian bill that allows the government of the United States of America to act much like a totalitarian regime

It becomes clear here that you get 100% of your news from FOX, which reinforces the conclusion you are not an immigrant, because why wouldn't you be getting some of your news from BBC or CBC or some other actually "Fair and Balanced" news network that actually is balanced by its very nature, not just it's contradictory, politically and religiously motivated tagline, that the PEOPLE know is just false advertising, based on actual evidence of how that news network bleats out one sided, 2 dimensional programs like "Glenn Beck" or "Bill O'Reilly" whose purpose is not news reporting, but trashing the Democratic party at every turn.. If you are actually a well informed citizen who has migrated to the US, you should know better than to buy into that crap, so It is pretty clear you are someone misrepresenting yourself to make it look like your points have more weight than they actually do. This is /. and despite idiots like you posting here, the regular posters here are intelligent and know better. You continue to dig your hole deeper and deeper though..

I think I am not the only one in America who will keep note of who is voting to keep American under the dictat

Re:I feel proud as an American!

[fustakrakich]

Yes, we can rant and rave all we want, they don't hear any of it. The simple fact is that we are outnumbered. Nothing else matters at this point.

I might have to vote for this guy

[Snotnose]

Dunno what else he stands for, but he just made a huge "hell ya" in my book. I'm sure I'll find out in the next few days he's a misogynist endangered species farker.

Seriously, dunno what else he stands for but his efforts to let this abomination die wins him major points in my book.

So What!

[bobf0648]

Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!

Rand Paul may have done only one thing right ...

[Taco Cowboy]

So he did one thing you agree with. The rest of his profile is just bat shit crazy

Even if that Rand Paul guy has done only one thing right that ONE THING still represents one thing MORE than all the other congress-critters (plus senate critters) on the Congressional Hill!

Hey, as a citizen of the United States of America I do understand the problem with the devoid of quality of the congress-critters, and I know I do not have any more option to pick and choose --- whoever does anything right in the Congress in this days has become a RARITY, something that the People can appreciate, and we do appreciate that gesture, whether it is genuine or not, very much!

Yeah, call me bat shit crazy all you want - as long as we can dump that motherfucking law out you can call me anything you want!!

Who are the fascists??

[Taco Cowboy]

. In the end Rand Paul is just another fascist conservative running under the "libertarian" banner even though his notion of liberty is quite twisted

Excuse me?

Who the fuck are the REAL fascists here??

The ones who UPHOLD the spirit of the Constitution of the United States of America, or the ones who STEPPED ON IT??

Other than name calling what else you fascist liberals can do?

Re:Who are the fascists??

[ganjadude]

fascism would mean bigger federal government (as you said, centralizing power)

something neither rand nor ron supports.

if you are gonna make a statement, at least have SOMETHING to back it up

Re:Who are the fascists??

[damn_registrars]

fascism would mean bigger federal government (as you said, centralizing power)

Wrong. Fascism does not require a bigger federal government, in fact a larger government is generally the opposite of fascism. Fascism requires more power in the hands of fewer people. There are many ways to de-centralize power - including growing the federal government. Centralizing power - such as aspiring to the "government you can drown in a bathtub" principle - is a giant step towards fascism.

And more power in the hands of fewer people - at the expense of the rest - is a fundamental characteristic of what both Ron and Rand support.

if you are gonna make a statement, at least have SOMETHING to back it up

Pretty much everything either of them have ever supported supports my statement of them being fascists - particularly if you use a definition of fascism that makes sense rather than just one that is used as a generic label and put-down for anyone who you disagree with.

Re:Who are the fascists??

[ChrisMaple]

There are many different sorts of government that feature "extreme concentration of power in the hands of very few people", and that condition is not at all the defining characteristic of fascism (which is a particular variety of regimented society).

Of all major politicians of the last 50 years, the Pauls stand out as the obvious promoters of freedom, enemies of regimentation and concentration of power.

The cult has favored restructuring power in many ways to exclude many people.

Your complete absence of understanding is on display here; the goal is to remove power because power causes abuse.

"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson - illustrates the proper attitude.

Re:Who are the fascists??

[damn_registrars]

Wow, look at you. Trying to be rational, and use definitions in a political discussion here on slashdot. You must be new here.

Re:Who are the fascists??

[ganjadude]

since when did constitutionalist fascist???

wanting to let the 50 states decide, instead of the 1 federal government doesnt seem like consolidating the power, it seems like it is spreading the power to 50 different entities rather than a single large one like the neo cons and progressives would prefer.

they want literally the exact opposite of what you claim they do

Re:Who are the fascists??

[Just Another Poster]

You do not know the meaning of fascism. Instead, you're using the term as a mere epithet.

Fascists have a view of world history in which ethnic or national groups are primary. They have a Hobbesian theory of society and the State where the nation must be reified as an individual, where disagreement and competition must be forcibly suppressed. Economic ideology is corporatist: having nothing to do with business corporations, but rather a form of guild socialism - central planning, where market competition is suppressed by the State, and sectors of society and the economy, such as agriculture, business, labor, etc. are regimented into organizations under a single governing body and forced to negotiate with each other to establish policies in the interest of each organization and the body as a whole.

Re:Who are the fascists??

[dcollins]

"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson - illustrates the proper attitude.

The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.

Re:Who are the fascists??

[shutdown -p now]

Your definition of fascism is seriously weird, and not at all historical. Quite the opposite - most totalitarian regimes, including fascism (which, after all, what the word "totalitarian" was originally coined for - by Mussolini himself, no less!) have a huge, bureaucratized state apparatus with significant authority. Yes, that apparatus is used primarily to ensure that the few people on top of the pyramid stay on top, and that the rest are doing what those people on top want them to do, but that is not small government in any sense of the word, and is not at all what the Pauls are trying to sell.

Re:Who are the fascists??

[totallyarb]

The act of owning slaves, on the other hand, not so much.

I stand open to correction here, but my understanding was that Jefferson inherited the vast majority of the slaves that he owned, and his only known purchases of slaves were in order to reunite family members who had been separated by sales to different masters. It's true that he didn't free many of his slaves, but that was (apparently) because life for an ex-slave in Virginia in the 18th century was arguably nastier than being nominally "owned" by a caring owner. He also attempted to pass laws through the Virginia state legislature that would have abolished slavery (his bill was defeated), and included an anti-slavery diatribe in the original Declaration of Independence, which was cut by the committee before it was published.

When you get right down to it, there is not a lot one man - even a President of the United States - can do when the culture of the time is against him. But he seems to have done about as much as he could in the circumstances, so criticising him from a perspective more than two centuries later seems a bit unfair.

Lemme ask you this ...

[Taco Cowboy]

... was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co ...

Please spare me the history lesson, dude

I do need to ask you a question, tho ...
 
Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[DarkTempes]

Actually, it's Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R, WI-5), the same guy who sponsored the Patriot Act.

I'm not a fan of political parties as a concept but just saying...

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[anagama]

Exactly. The mantra of Blame Bush is so old and tired. Yeah, I blame Bush for what he did, and I blame Obama for making the crap Bush did the new normal, which is actually worse. GWB was seen as on the radical side of exercising presidential powers -- Obama's making that the new baseline makes reform much less likely and so Obama's presidency is ultimately even a worse disservice than GWB's was. Unless of course you want to live in a US where most all power, eventually all, lies in the Executive branch.

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe Biden was the original author:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of-the-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[Jeremi]

... under the dictatorship of Obama ...

Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?

What kind of a dictator "asks" Congress for anything? A proper dictator would, you know, dictate his commands, and any Congressman who refused to rubber-stamp them would be fired, or shot (or both).

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[HairyNevus]

I really can't wait until we get a new president. Then it will everyone bitching about the next one will get told to blame Obama, and then people will counter that blaming Obama is old and tired but the new president is somehow worse for not being radically different.

You know what I really honestly and non-sarcastically can't wait for? The day when you idiots stop voting these people into power. As long as the race for presidency--as long as most every political race at every level in this country-- is between a Democrat or a Republican, that will never happen.

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[Mitreya]

What kind of a dictator "asks" Congress for anything? A proper dictator would, you know, dictate his commands

A clever dictator asks Congress for things he does not want, so that he can deflect the blame to Congress when they fail to pass it. You don't see presidents asking for permission about, say, drone bombings in various countries.

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[cavreader]

The President is the Commander and Chief of the US armed services. Under the War Powers Act he can declare war without getting Congressional approval. The President has 90 days after the start of the war to convince Congress to support his decision. If they do not agree they have the power to stop providing the money needed to prosecute the war. The drone strikes are carried out with the permission from the countries where the attacks take place. Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghani governments have given the US permission to conduct drone attacks in their countries. No matter how much those governments try to deny it to their general public they have approved the US drone operations. And it does not matter one bit if the Patriot Act or any similar act exists because the national security agencies will still do pretty much anything they want any way. I doubt seriously whether the NSA really cares about losing the ability to collect metadata. And any similar program that involves collecting large amounts of data will also be no big loss. The NSA and CIA can pretty much do anything they want outside of the US just like every other intelligence service in the world can come to the US and nose around. I personally think the US should eliminate the TSA and let you keep your shoes on when you go through airport security. I think the government should do what the people want and roll back all of the security measures put in place since 9/11. I am willing to take the risk of becoming a victim from a terrorist attack. If there is a terrorist attack that kills a sizable number of people the government should just track down those responsible and kill them with absolutely no large military deployments or prolonged presence in a foreign country. When the public starts complaining that the government should have prevented the attack the government can honestly say they discontinued all of the over reaching domestic related national security measures just like the US public wanted.

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[CrimsonAvenger]

A clever dictator asks Congress for things he does not want, so that he can deflect the blame to Congress when they fail to pass it

If he didn't want it, why did he renew it last time? He's got a veto for that sort of thing.

Note, by the by, that both this time and last time, the Dems in the Senate were pretty solidly in favor of renewal

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[tomkost]

posting again non-AC... Agree with all you said, except one part. The vast majority of my fellow Americans don't even realize there are other options beyond R and D. That's because the media is complicit in excluding 3rd parties and preserving the duopoly. Since Citizens United, it's only gotten worse. So the Supreme Court is also to blame. None of the three branches of government support the people any longer.

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[tnk1]

Its true. Hillary will either be an Obama copy, or just as likely, a Bill Clinton copy. Presumably without cigars.

The Republican candidates will be either Bush copies, or corporate CEOs, or Fundamentalists.

Oh, and there's a socialist running this year too. That's sort of new, last one we had was Eugene Debs in the beginning of the 20th Century. Looks like we're due for our socialist this part of the century.

I honestly have no idea who to vote for. More to the point, I'll probably facepalm more than once over the subsequent four years over the person who I do vote for.

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[Bartles]

Except that when Obama is President, Congress using it's Constitutional powers to withhold funding is cast as, "Republicans holding guns to the heads of the American People." So don't count on that working.

Re:Lemme ask you this ...

[cayenne8]

It's bipartisan. The thing is, they will let it expire, use that to get into office, stage or provoke another major incident, then reinstate the patriot act, only tougher. Using the excuse that getting rid of it made the country vulnerable to terrorist attack. Later the skeptics, and anti war protesters will group together and fight to stop whatever insane killing is going on. The Democrats will take credit for this and use it to get back into office. It's a tag team match between big oil and the motion picture and movie industry.

Don't get too comfy with this.

The Senate will likely pass the Houses "freedom act" bill that basically puts most of the Patriot act back in function, with the single difference being that the metadata will be housed at the phone companies, and a warrant will be needed for each query into it.

Better than before, but certainly not doing away with it totally as I'd like, and start over. The other provisions for lone wolf and traveling wiretaps will be back in full force though.

Likely this will be law again by Wednesday.

Don't worry...

[rgbatduke]

... in a few weeks the powers that be will let (if necessary, "encourage") an act of extreme terrorism on US soil succeed. Then they will go back to the well, and congress will enthusiastically vote us all into chains at the same time they increase the budget and personal power of all of the shadow spooks keeping us safe.

Well, probably not a few weeks -- that would be too suspicious. But look for it within the year, especially if they can find a poster-child terrorist they can point at and say -- look, if only we were tapping everybody's phone (including yours) we could have found him in time to prevent this tragedy...

rgb

Re:What a cluster ****

[Drakonblayde]

The sad part is that the act just moves the spying to your communications provider. And part of the bill gives them immunity for providing the records (section 105) and also to compensate them for doing so (section 106)

The USA Freedom Act is the same crap, this is just Capitol Hill Monte being played. About the only good thing about the act is that companies will actually be able to admit their under FISA gag orders.

blowback

[PopeRatzo]

I'm a little bit afraid of what our Intelligence Apparatus will do if backed into a corner.

I'd feel a lot better if Senator Paul was fighting for increased oversight over the NSA's off-the-books budget. I mean, we already know that they don''t give fuck-all about the law.

Re:Midnight is in the morning

[Drakonblayde]

The provisions expire midnight Jun 1, 2015, not May 31, 2015.

So, as of right now, and as of the time you posted, the provisions have not expired.

However, the program is already in shutdown, as they had to start turning it down early in order to be in compliance with the midnight expiration

Re:Not usually an (R) but...

[ganjadude]

oh ok. i see. you are equating his personal beliefs, with what he would do as president. common mistake that all to many people on both sides like to do

his stance is simple, and consistent. "is it constitutional?"

as for both of those things, federally, there is no amendment to either topic. both are issues for the states to decide. and last i checked, rand believes in states rights.

simple mistake, you are not the only one

Re:Rand Paul may have done only one thing right ..

[ATMAvatar]

Even if that Rand Paul guy has done only one thing right that ONE THING still represents one thing MORE than all the other congress-critters (plus senate critters) on the Congressional Hill!

While I applaud him for so openly opposing the bill, he's not the only one in Congress who has. There were 121 votes against the bill in the House.

Re:So What! A Roadmap...

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Does anyone really think they, the NSA, is not going to spy, with or without approval? We have no way to control them, they hold all the cards!

The have always spied and that part will never cease. But it's time to shake them up a little.

1. If it can and will be abused, refrain from building it in the first place.
2. If it has been built, see that it is laid bare to the greatest extent possible and dismantled.
3. For egregious offenses, the offending Agency must be completely disbanded, its assets liquidated, and formed anew.
4. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. (only joking!)

The United States is presently under attack, by itself, in a way even Stalin was unable to achieve given the limited technology of his time. Due to a lack of transparency and believability, a technological renaissance with (apparently) no moral compass steered by Charter, the NSA has likely deployed assets and capabilities for domestic surveillance. The following attack vectors cannot be ruled out:

There is an unknown, possibly massive tapping of the backbone network occurring. Utah Data Center's central location is a clue. Thomas Drake, Bill Binney and Mark Klein have all come forward alleging domestic surveillance far exceeding 'telephone records'. Klein is of especial note, for it is he who revealed the existence of Room 641A in the lawsuit Heptig vs AT&T that EFF took almost to the Supreme Court, who declined to hear the case on the basis that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 protected AT&T from liability for involvement with any illegal activities. A law passed after the lawsuit was filed. In response to it, even.

That should make you a bit angry. We're not talking about telephone records here. We're talking about fiber splitting with drop-in access to the whole slurp. To any future despot this means that the United States may be prepared to deliver real-time private communications and databases of activity for its citizens, cradle to grave. Why the fuck would anyone want to build this thing, unless they were insane? James Bamford hinted at the possibility that NSA was 'going domestic' in his 1982 book Puzzle Palace as he suggests its interest in developing technology for bulk microwave gathering. That is to be expected as this technology was deployed worldwide. But the way they wished to go about it was a bit... peculiar:

Another indication of NSA's "broadband sweeping of multi-circuited domestic telecommunications trunk lines," David L. Watters told the Senate Intelligence Committee [in 1978!] lies in the Agency's request for an amendment to the wiretap law that would permit NSA to engage in warrantless wiretapping "for the sole purpose of determining the capability of equipment" when such "test period shall be limited... to... ninety days." Continuing, he warned: "Let there be no misunderstanding here. There is only one category of wiretapping equipment or system which requires up to ninety days for test and adjustment, and that system is broadband electronic eavesdropping equipment, the vacuum-cleaner approach to intelligence gathering, the general search of microwave trunk lines. I make this assertion on the strength of actual experience in the electronic intelligence trade and on the strength of over twenty-five years' experience in the telecommunications profession. An ordinary, single-line wire tap requires only five minutes to adjust and test."

NSA should not have wanted th

Nonsene, both of you!

[linearZ]

... was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co ...

Who is the one coming out asking the Congress to extend the Patriot Act?

Was it Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co., or was it Obama?

This argument is exactly the argument they want. because this argument leads nowhere.

The patriot act was promulgated by Cheney Rumsfeld Bush and Co. under a republican controlled congress. And it was backed by Obama under a democratically controlled congress, and - if not for the exception of one guy with a backbone - almost got pushed through a Republican controlled congress by a Democrat president again. So you are both right. What are your points?

The one thing that you two probably agree with, the one thing that polls have shown like 80% if Americans agreeing with, is that the Patriot Act is nonsense and needs to be repealed. Yet, over 99% of the elected representatives seems to want the Patriot Act passed.

Meanwhile, armchair yahoos such as yourselves are busy arguing about which politician is to blame? Balderdash! How about blaming all elected officials, except for maybe Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders? If you can only think of this through the lens of political parties, how about going with the vertebrate and invertebrate parties? I know, without their own news channels, it is hard to imagine....

Re:Nonsene, both of you!

[nine-times]

The one thing that you two probably agree with, the one thing that polls have shown like 80% if Americans agreeing with, is that the Patriot Act is nonsense and needs to be repealed. Yet, over 99% of the elected representatives seems to want the Patriot Act passed.

What do you imagine this is all about, then? Why do you think there's such a discrepancy?

My running theory is that it has nothing to do with political parties or oppression. The elected officials support the PATRIOT Act because they're cowards. They believe that the American people are stupid and fickle, and that even if 100% strongly support repealing the PATRIOT Act, those same people will still blame their elected politicians for "not doing enough" when the next terrorist attack comes.

And they're right to believe it. There will be another successful terrorist attack. There will. Someday, under some circumstances; it's only a matter of time. And when it happens, no matter what the circumstances are, the general populace will panic, and they'll do all kinds of stupid things. And the funny thing is, you might not realize this unless you really pay attention, but the general populace has no memory. It doesn't matter how much they disapprove of the PATRIOT Act now. As soon as there's a successful terrorist attack and they're scared and confused, they'll be absolutely irate that we aren't spying on more people more often. They won't have any idea why the NSA stopped monitoring all of our phone calls, but they'll be angry at anyone involved in putting an end to it.

I mean, if you talk to people now, nobody was ever in favor of invading Iraq. Go ahead and ask people, and they'll get upset and say they don't know why we went in, but it was a big mistake, and they always knew it was a mistake. Or they'll say they were tricked. But back when it happened, it was popular enough that representatives were afraid to oppose it. At least some of those people are mis-remembering. Same thing with all of the deregulation going on during the Clinton era, which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten happened during Clinton's presidency. Everyone remembers that they economy grew under Clinton, but everyone forgets all the deregulation and Walmartization going on at the time.

People have no memory and no principles, so they're just running off of whatever they're feeling at the time. Our elected officials tend to base their policies on irrational fear and bigotry because those are the most consistent and trustworthy feelings.

Re:Nonsene, both of you!

[Crashmarik]

The only way to limit the governments ability to harm you, is to limit the size and power of government.

Of course that means you have to give up the government "Helping" people you like and support.

When all the choices on the ballot

[waspleg]

are carefully selected by corporate money/the rich who own them then there is no real change since it's the same hand up the ass of both party puppets.

Except of course...

[MitchDev]

this won't stop the NSA and FBI, CIA, etc from continuing their unconstitutional surveillance state...

Re:Except of course...

[macbass]

Agreed. I trust no on in these positions to stop just because it is unlawful to continue. Especially with all the whining about how "useful" (i.e., no proof that they helped in anyway) they have been. Perhaps I've been jaundiced by all 24 and all those other programs but since when does the expiration of a law mean anything? It's not like enforcers can seal off a room or disconnect servers from the Intertubes.