home

Rand Paul Ends 10 Hour "Filibuster"

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed May 20, 2015 at 11:15:18 PM EST
Tags: patriot act (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rand Paul has ended his 10 hour "filibuster" over the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Among his main points:

  • "We're using the Patriot Act to put [drug offenders] in prison."
  • "The presumption of innocence is an incredibly important doctrine that we shouldn't so casually dismiss."
  • Warrants need to be "individualized," because collective law enforcement is the root of much evil.
  • Internet/telephone/data companies should put up "unified resistance" to federal compulsion to turn over user data.
  • Forfeiture: "The government is "using records to gain entrance to people, and then tak[ing] their stuff without conviction."

< Letterman Signs Off | "El Chino Antrax" Pleads Guilty in San Diego >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rand Paul Ends 10 Hour "Filibuster" | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Praise where due... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:29:26 AM EST
    Thanks to Paul, Wyden, and the 8 others who supported this effort. Even (gulp) Cruz.

    Unfortunately it appears the UnPatriot Act will be reauthorized, the best we can hope for is a better USA QuasiFreedom Act outta the deal.

    Unless the President gets on the ball and takes executive action, as Paul urged him to do.  Where's the post-partisan unity when we need it!  Take the bait Obama, be the hero.

    Funny... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    ...Paul does deserve praise, 10 fricken hours, that is something.

    Obama will never get on the side of less government spying on it's own citizens IMO.

    Parent

    The libertarian right ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    has been far more consistent on these issues than mainstream liberals.

    In fact, in many civil liberty causes it's the far left and the libertarian right that band together to bring these issues to the fore.

    Wyden is one of the only Democrats with any kind of consistency on this issue.  But he's significantly to the left of most in the party.

    I could support a Republican of the libertarian wing of the party if I knew he'd be consistent on these issues.  Because these are the most important issues of the day.

    Parent

    Shame on my party (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Babel 17 on Thu May 21, 2015 at 12:42:37 PM EST
    Shame on my party if they don't rise to this opportunity. We shouldn't retreat to the failed policies that still haunt us. Remember the lesson Truman spelled out, and reflect on how it still applies. If we keep telling people we need police state like law enforcement, eventually people might vote in a government that will really deliver such, and in spades.

    It was my original understanding (2.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:51:29 AM EST
    That if the feds wanted to track who called who they could start tracking but had to get approval from the FISA court within 24 hours.

    If I remember that wasn't acceptable to many of the folks around here.

    That still seems reasonable to me.

    72 hours, which in the past (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri May 22, 2015 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    You thought an unreasonable restriction, Jim, according to what you've written here about it.

    Parent
    What I said was (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 22, 2015 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    As usual the Left ignores what the Fourth Amendment says:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I again call your attention to the word "unreasonable." I again note that this qualifier was put in there because the founders did not consider all searches to be unreasonable, and in fact its purpose is to obviously stop such things as harassment by the police and not stop all searches unless covered by a warrant. I again call your attention to the fact that the actions in question are surveillance of voice/data transmissions from suspected/known terrorists OUTSIDE the US to locations within the US, and from locations within the US to suspected/known terrorists OUSTIDE the US. I again call to your attention that there has been no known DOMESTIC surveillance. It is clear that those who wrote our constitution had common sense in vast quantities. It is a shame that the Far Left does not. Or perhaps it is the Far Left's and Demos hatred of Bush that has clouded their vision and stifled their brains.

    The above is not what the PA became and didn't envision the NSA storing all called/calling numbers.

    And I'd still opt for the above.

    Of course a secondary problem has emerged. The speed of the terrorists in changing phones and computers. If the feds are gonna find all people involved with a terrorist they need to be quick and to be able to ask:

    "Who has this number called in the past X months and who has called this number in the past X months."

    That leads to storing.

    Parent

    The Far Left.. (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    Now Paul's Libertarian Right approach comes from "the Far Left"?

    Your simplistic, O'Reillyian model of us true blue Americans vs "the Far Left" doesn't really apply in this case, does it, Jim?

    No, it doesn't.

    Parent

    Et al, I eagerly await Jim (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri May 22, 2015 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    telling us how much Rand Paul wants the terrorists to win, like his chimerical Far Left defines unreasonable so narrowly as to endanger the Republic itself.

    Parent
    probably (none / 0) (#21)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    also throw in something about polar bears.

    Parent
    And pacifism. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:10:10 PM EST


    Parent
    With (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 22, 2015 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    selectively bold faced links.

    Parent
    Et al yourself (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 22, 2015 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    My reply was to point out that your claim was 100% wrong proving again that all you know how to do is fabricate.

    Now, staying on subject, do you have any problem with the original FISA as I described above?


    Parent

    Sorry, but your attempt to confuse people (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri May 22, 2015 at 10:09:32 PM EST
    over your position about the FISA, can be easily seen by anyone who cares to use Google and use their eyes to see what you wrote on the subject.


    Parent
    The comment was what I did write (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    "on the subject."

    Thanks for taking the bait.

    Parent

    Are you claiming to be the master (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:41:46 PM EST
    baiter here, Jim?  😇

    Parent
    There is such a thing as the (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 22, 2015 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    Libertarian Left that agrees with some of the Far Left's agenda.

    But my comment was based on the kerfuffle the Left was having at that point in time and a disagreement over what is and what is not reasonable.

    But you knew that when you replied.

    Parent

    Having you expound on what is reasonable (4.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat May 23, 2015 at 01:51:31 AM EST
    is purely lol territory.

    Parent
    "The Left" (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 05:57:51 PM EST
    As usual the Left ignores what the Fourth Amendment says.

    No, Jim.  Ignoring you and your silly opinions of the 4th Amendment are not the same thing as ignoring the 4th Amendment.  Many of us, in fact, are far better educated about the 4th Amendment (and generally) than you.

    Parent

    The issue was (2.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:26:40 PM EST
    ... I again call your attention to the word "unreasonable." I again note that this qualifier was put in there because the founders did not consider all searches to be unreasonable, and in fact its purpose is to obviously stop such things as harassment by the police and not stop all searches unless covered by a warrant.

    Now, would you like to debate the point or is your arm and hand too sore from patting yourself on the back in celebration of your self appraised "intelligence."

    Parent

    "Debate"? (4.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 06:58:03 PM EST
    Your opinion is not a "point".  It's just as silly opinion.  Debating matters of law with you would be like a Pee Wee football team challenging the Seahawks*, then hiding under the bleachers with their fingers in their ears screaming "We won because we believe we won"!

    (The Seahawks in this case being not necessarily an attorney, but anyone with a decent education and basic familiarity with constitutional law.

    Parent

    BTW - The portion quoted in this post (none / 0) (#29)
    by Yman on Fri May 22, 2015 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    ... is not the issue - or much of a "point":

    1.  "the founders did not consider all searches to be unreasonable" - uhhhhmmmm, ... no kidding.

    2.   "its purpose is to obviously stop such things as harassment by the police and not stop all searches unless covered by a warrant." - again, no kidding.

    If that's your "point", no one is going to argue with you for stating the obvious.  Now tell us about how the ocean is wet.

    Parent
    Actually a whole bunch (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 23, 2015 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    of people debated the "reasonable" vs "unreasonable" issue.

    Guess they did know you had already decided the issue.

    Silly them.

    Parent

    No - "a whole bunch of people" ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 05:33:21 PM EST
    ,,, debated whether the types of searches being performed under the Patriot Act were reasonable.  They were not debating your silly, straw "points" which I repeated and numbered for you so you wouldn't confuse yourself.

    Silly you.

    Parent

    Ah, the older you get the more confused you get (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 23, 2015 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    but that doesn't mean you get to make up things and lie without being called on it.

    Parent
    Funny how many people here (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    you accuse of making things up, Jim.

    Parent
    And I produce a (2.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:33:49 AM EST
    link showing up the person for what they are.

    I have done it several times to you and will most likely have a chance to do it in the future because you never change.

    And the same link I used on you also applies to Yman. But he has no shame and has been shadowing me ever since I banned him from my blog for his vulgar and nasty personal attacks.

    You follow in his shadow.

    Parent

    Oh, you did no such thing. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 08:39:47 AM EST
    As for vulgar, Yman has a long way to go before he reaches your level. a long way down.

    And if you can't take the heat here, quit whining about it, as it demonstrates what a weak-minded character you are.

    No charge for the lesson.

    Parent

    Banned from Jim's blog (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Yman on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:37:31 AM EST
    Hehehehehehe ...

    A place where Jim (and noone else) goes to spew his silly, tinfoil theories.

    Oh, nooooo!  Whatever will I do?!?

    Heheheh...

    Parent

    Yes, it's so funny (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun May 24, 2015 at 09:49:30 AM EST
    How he has a more restrictive policy there than JL has here, along with the fact that  he doesn't like people to link to it here because it blows away his cover of being a "social liberal".

    Here is one of his screeds from last December

    Don't look now but we have just lost the war with radical islamists. And like our withdrawal from Vietnam showed the Muslim terrorists that to win all they had to was just hang on North Korea has shown them how to force us to change our culture.

    Ohh, they want us to change our culture, how scary is that, boys and girls?

    Parent

    Pre-CISE-ly (none / 0) (#37)
    by Yman on Sat May 23, 2015 at 09:17:25 PM EST
    Which is why i called you on it.

    But at least we're clear that you weren't simply confused.

    Parent

    Candidate Obama: I would support (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu May 21, 2015 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    a filibuster re the FISA revise.  

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 21, 2015 at 04:28:00 PM EST
    what's sad? There are people dumping on Hillary because the stuff Obama has done.

    Parent
    not to mention (none / 0) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 21, 2015 at 05:12:32 PM EST
    Bill's stuff and of course Bush's stuff hanging around  her neck that cost her the crown last cycle. Dumping on Hillary is a daily occurrence. Once the campaign really heats up I expect it hourly. During the GOP debates I expect the rate to peak at 10-15 an hr.

    Of course all this just the tip of the iceberg, if and when she wins the nomination the fun will really begin. Her opponent will be well armed with media supplied "scandal weapons" and a huge, unprecedented wave of dark money will cover the country with a "dump" storm of biblical proportions.

    Parent

    The good (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 21, 2015 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    news it seems no amount of money can fix the problems the GOP candidates have.

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 21, 2015 at 06:49:39 PM EST
    bad news is most of that money won't go to fixing the unfixable, it will be spent on trying to destroy Hillary. The good news is she knows what is coming and is uniquely qualified to withstand the tempest.

    Parent
    Isn't (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 21, 2015 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    that the truth. The Kochs have millions or billions to try to buy an election but can't spend one penny paying their people more.

    Parent
    Well, the last round of GOP attacks ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:29:34 PM EST
    ... led to a notable rise in Mrs. Clinton's approval ratings, as voters consider the source and respond accordingly. And then they're crowing about it on Fox News as though they were successful. Well, any more such "triumphs" like that, and their chances will evaporate before New Year's Eve.

    Parent
    I missed the segue. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu May 21, 2015 at 09:37:51 PM EST
    Explain please.

    Parent
    It's not going on (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 22, 2015 at 04:51:20 AM EST
    here just other places.

    Parent
    Even a stopped clock (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 21, 2015 at 07:45:59 PM EST
    is right twice a day.

    Give Credit Where Credit Is Due (none / 0) (#14)
    by john horse on Fri May 22, 2015 at 05:53:45 AM EST
    I agree with every one of Paul's main points. In the heat of the moment, we have a tendency to overreact to criminal actions, like 9/11.  Its time to undo the damage done by the Patriot Act.

    Rand Paul Ends 10 Hour "Filibuster" | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment