Sen. Rand Paul says he's suing over NSA policies

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/sen-paul-says-hes-suing-over-nsa-policies/

by ColinWright • 13 years ago

109 70 13 years ago

bigstory.ap.org

tokenadult• 13 years ago

It looks like this submission with the correct spelling of the Senator's name in the submission headline will get more traction for discussion of the substantive issues in the story. I'll begin, and I look forward to comments by other Hacker News participants.

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

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

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

twoodfin3• 13 years ago

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

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

thrillgore• 13 years ago

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

javajosh• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dethstar• 13 years ago

Unsure if you meant cojones you see, cajones translates to drawers.

jbooth3• 13 years ago

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

jacalata2• 13 years ago

2 US senators? I haven't seen any name except Rand Paul.

f_salmon• 13 years ago

My question would be:

How should we be able to trust them ever again?

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

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

eloff• 13 years ago

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

dllthomas9• 13 years ago

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

a3n4• 13 years ago

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

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

twoodfin3• 13 years ago

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

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

a3n4• 13 years ago

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

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

jbooth3• 13 years ago

I would be seriously fascinated to hear Obama's honest reasoning on this topic. He's got a history all the way back to law school of public statements that are diametrically opposed to what he's authorizing the NSA to do. Yet when he's president, he lets it continue? I mean, maybe he stopped them from doing some even worse stuff, but you'd think he'd be opposed to the currently disclosed programs, from his history.

Mikeb85• 13 years ago

The NSA works for the President.

While I'm not that well versed in American politics, I find that hard to believe. The President doesn't seem to be some sort of all-controlling, micromanaging dictator, I'd find it more believable that he doesn't directly control the majority of US institutions, especially since most of them operate regardless of the political party in charge.

I mean, the NSA has been operating for 60 years, so obviously there is some continuity, and their activities go beyond the whims of each individual president...

res0nat0r• 13 years ago

The President isn't a dictator.

The NSA is under the DoD. So he needs to start by firing Chuck Hagel, then his Deputy, then General Alexander, et al.

That is going to do more damage than it helps. The NSA isn't black and white no matter how much people on HN have recently decided it to be so.

Law changes and reforms within the NSA are the only sane way to fix issues you don't like without doing more harm than good, and the President just doesn't unilaterally get to pass new laws on his whim.

InclinedPlane• 13 years ago

Indeed, the NSA is one of the four branches of our government, and there is little control the executive branch has over its operations or conduct.

refurb• 13 years ago

It is true that Obama is limited in what he can do, but apparently he isn't even willing to do that.

The Obama administration has decided to preserve a controversial arrangement under which a single military official is permitted to direct both the National Security Agency and the military’s cyberwarfare command despite an external review panel’s recommendation against doing so, according to U.S. officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-...

adventured4• 13 years ago

If Obama wanted to fundamentally alter this problem forever, he'd go on national TV and tell the American public exactly the situation - that the NSA is so powerful he can no longer control it. Then he'd convene with Congress, and order the NSA to be dismantled immediately (and rebuilt under a different, much more restrained spec).

If the NSA tried to stop the process and acted against the orders of the Commander-in-chief, Obama should then recall the US Military and destroy the NSA with brute force, treating it as a hostile domestic militia that is attempting a coup. Game over. Sound far fetched? No, it's just a standard issue government revolution, no different than what has gone on throughout history all across the map.

mixmastamyk• 13 years ago

I think those that have been paying attention know this. If it is bad from one party it is bad from another. However, perhaps this is a calculated attempt to rally TV conservatives around the cause. It may not be completely accurate, but it might work.

natmaster6• 13 years ago

Don't let your political idealism blind you. Obama has control over the NSA, and Paul is calling out the man who can change its policies.

corin_2• 13 years ago

Sure you're right, but if Obama lost his last election do you think they'd be any difference to the NSA today? Maybe Rand Paul cares more about the morals than the politics, maybe he doesn't. I don't like the guy, but whatever his motive I'm happy he's doing this. At the end of the day, both sides would be happy to claim morality when really just playing politics, so even if that is what he's doing, I don't see it as making him any worse than his colleagues or rivals.

jrockway• 13 years ago

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

14573893• 13 years ago

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

chill1• 13 years ago

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

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

natmaster6• 13 years ago

A few good men.

crystaln3• 13 years ago

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

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

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

rayiner• 13 years ago

Its a good strategic move. The way to build support against the NSA among Republicans is to associate it with Obama. "This isn't Reagan's NSA but Obama's NSA." It fits into the party's narrative of Obama being dictatorial. It also is a good way to sway his party, which is otherwise trusting of law enforcement. Someone might trust the NSA in the abstract, but an NSA run by someone who wants to round up gun owners and impose Sharia law (or so the narrative goes)? Associating the spying with Obama personally is the perfect way of creating doubt among conservatives that otherwise reflexively trust government when national security is implicated.

lisper2• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, it won't last. As soon as we have a Republican in the White House again the narrative will switch again, and the NSA will once again be protecting our security rather than threatening our civil liberties. They did it with health care: Romneycare was good and Obamacare is bad, despite the fact that they are essentially identical policies.

hga• 13 years ago

Anyone who doubts the essence of the "round up gun owners" narrative (disarm us, of course) which became an imperative after Sandy Hook, post election, but not Aurora, Colorado, pre-election, hasn't been paying attention.

And your point is a very good one: smashing enough trust in the government that a lot of conservatives have, e.g. ones like me who grew up watching The F.B.I. starring Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., is a critical step in fixing things. I'd say it won't take much, based on the one House vote so far, which didn't break along any conventional lines (party, region, etc.)

moistgorilla• 13 years ago

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

jnbiche• 13 years ago

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

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

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

crystaln3• 13 years ago

I did not flag it because it goes against my political views. I flagged because it is run-of-the-mill political showmanship, not legitimate news.

Zigurd• 13 years ago

Well into a second term, it's the incumbent's everything, isn't it? Are any of the same generals still fighting "Bush's wars?"

larubbio• 13 years ago

So when Obama's term is up and a new president is elected will the problem go away?

Labeling it as "Barack Obama's NSA" incorrectly boxes the issue into the typical left/right categories we use in American politics. It will turn off those on the left, and not get the point across to those on the right why this is an issue. Since he used that kind of partisan language in the press release it really makes me question his motivations on this. Is he against it because it is wrong, or because it is an opportunity to ding the president and get his name in the press again.

noarchy• 13 years ago

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

Sen. Rand Paul says he's suing over NSA policies

Related Stories