Republicans clash over NSA surveillance powers - [Walker supports program as is]

Associated Press ^ | May 18 2015 6:29 pm

[SoConPubbie]

PHILADELPHIA — Republicans clashed over the future of government surveillance programs on Monday, highlighting a deep divide among the GOP’s 2016 presidential class over whether the National Security Agency should be collecting American citizens’ phone records in the name of preventing terrorism.

Republican White House hopeful Rand Paul decried the phone data program and other post-9-11 domestic surveillance as unconstitutional at a Monday event outside Philadelphia’s Independence Hall.

“We will do everything possible – including filibustering the Patriot Act – to stop them,” the Kentucky senator charged in front of the building where the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Three hundred miles to the north, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie offered an unapologetic defense of NSA phone records collection as he faced voters in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire. Christie, who said he used the Patriot Act as a federal prosecutor, argued that government surveillance powers should be strengthened, not weakened.

. . . . .

During an interview with The Associated Press, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker three times declined to say whether he supported reauthorizing the program. He said it was “important to be able to collect information like that,” as long as there were unspecified privacy safeguards. After the interview, a spokesman emailed to say that Walker supported continuing the program as it exists, with the NSA storing American phone records.

[SoConPubbie]

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton "We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan "A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792 "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

[SoConPubbie]

From the article:

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, strikes a middle ground, supporting a Senate version of the House bill that preserves the program while ending NSA bulk collection and storage.

    Ted Cruz Ping!

    If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
    Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

    CRUZ or LOSE!

[basil]

Is Cruz’s stance a good thing or bad thing? I can’t decide………he’s not known for being a middle of the road person, and this is what it looks like to me……...

[SoConPubbie]

Personally, I’m OK with his position.

[grania]

I like Rand Paul's approach. Get rid of the Patriot Act, recognize that the problem is (just as it was on 911) people who either aren't here legally or don't need to be in the US. Remove all invaders and all non-citizens whose jobs could be done by US citizens. Then stabilize and integrate the population.

The Patriot Act was an attempt to keep us safe yet let the invasion of the US continue. It's cost us our freedoms and hasn't kept us safe.

I thought Cruz is pro-Constitution. Why is he taking a middle-of-the-road position on this?

[SoConPubbie]

I thought Cruz is pro-Constitution. Why is he taking a middle-of-the-road position on this?

Well, for your premise to be true, one would have to agree with the premise that everything about the Patriot Act was against the constitution. I doubt that.

[Gaffer]

There are, I repeat, there are NO TERRORISTS! Obama hath spoken. Whatever doers-of-violence there are, it is the work of home grown, right wing, self-styled patriot nut jobs.

If there are no more terrorists and terrorism, and Al Qaeda is defeated and on the run, and ISIL (he won’t say ISIS) is “somebody we can work with if we just stop oppressing them,” then it is insanely stupid to support a Patriot Act that serves only to bow to the will of the evil administration.

NSA surveillance of private citizens’ electronic communications are a violation of the US Constitution, period. For a Republican candidate to support this act and NSA’s implementation of it is reprehensible, and THAT candidate won’t get my vote, ever.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

I would be for it if it hadn’t been abused over and over. I’m certain that Obama is using the information to compromise his political opponents. General Petraeus is the first name to come to mind.

[PGR88]

Is Cruz’s stance a good thing or bad thing? I can’t decide………he’s not known for being a middle of the road person, and this is what it looks like to me……...

Name one government department or program that has ended by itself or has NOT become a political plaything? The Dept of Education, EPA, Dept of Energy, Federal Reserve - all started with lofty goals of "helping" Americans in one way or another. They have instead become expensive organs to promote and protect the left/progressive state.

One thing is absolutely certain DHS and domestic spying - what was started with the intent to protect Americans will soon become a tool of one group in power to control another. Rand Paul is absolutely correct - this beast must be killed.

[basil]

Some of your thoughts were running through my head-——

[Georgia Girl 2]

I hate the Patriot Act and I would like to get rid of the whole dang thing but the bulk collection is the worst of it. Ted Cruz is trying walk the fine line to the GOP nomination right now so I’ll give him a pass for at least wanting to get rid of the bulk collection.

Mitt Walker as I have suspected all along is nothing more than another GW Bush type GOPe go along. I am sick of having him jammed down our throats like he’s the inevitable conservative candidate. The guy will not take a position unless you pin him to the ground and he won’t even announce his candidacy.

Ted Cruz or Donald Trump are the only two people right now with the force of personality to make any significant changes to this damaged country. Although Trump may be right when he says “the politicians are not going to get you to the promised land”.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Walker is dead to me.

[Hardens Hollow]

“The guy will not take a position unless you pin him to the ground ...”

That bothers me, a lot. We’ve been stabbed in the back so often by pretend conservatives that I am skeptical of any politician. but when they won’t even tell us their stance on issues or flip 3 times, as Walker has done on amnesty, the latest being recently perhaps because it was politically expedient, my BS meter gets pegged.

[lostboy61]

I saw a picture of Mitt Walker with his brothers. Mitt, Jeb, George and Walker. All the same! Flip-flop I don’t know were I’m at.

[servantboy777]

Welp...Scratch ol Walker.

Without probable cause, a citizen is protected by that lil ol document crafted many moons ago.

Give up on the constitution....you get government’s thumb pressing down on top of the citizens.

No thanx...preserve and protect the constitution and the bill of rights.

[grania]

I agree that there are probably some things in the Patriot Act that are constitutional. But there are so many things that probably aren't, and such a huge gov monster has been created in its name, the only sane solution is to dismantle it and start over, wiser and smarter.

First step....all of the 911 maniacs were Saudis who were no longer in the US illegally. How about we identify Saudi Arabia as a sponsor of terror and make some better friends?

[Hardens Hollow]

The problem is the MSM will back him - or Jeb or Rubio. And the conservatives that don’t really follow politics though the year will believe that they are conservatives. And the MSM, including Fox, will ignore Cruz as if he’s not even running.

Makes me feel like I am in the USSR, with government-controlled media brainwashing the masses. The real problem is that our masses are indeed being brainwashed, while the Soviet people knew they were being lied to.

[Lazamataz]

During an interview with The Associated Press, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker three times declined to say whether he supported reauthorizing the program. He said it was “important to be able to collect information like that,” as long as there were unspecified privacy safeguards. After the interview, a spokesman emailed to say that Walker supported continuing the program as it exists, with the NSA storing American phone records.

Crap.

I would support Walker over Bush or Rubio, but lukewarm support at best, because of this.

Cruz still wins.

[Springfield Reformer]

The "middle position" is the one between the two extremes of total acceptance of the current NSA bulk data collection program (Walker, Rubio, Bush), versus the libertarian position of total elimination of the programs (Paul), even those parts that actually are constitutional.  Here's Cruz speaking directly to the question of constitutionality:

Texas senator Ted Cruz, a rival to Paul for the libertarian voting bloc, is an original co-sponsor of the Senate’s version of the USA Freedom Act and said he was urging GOP leadership to bring the bill up for a vote and allow it to pass. Asked by the Guardian on Tuesday if he agreed with Paul’s assessment that the bill did not go far enough, Cruz said the legislation “strikes the appropriate balance and, critically, ends the government’s bulk collection of phone metadata from law-abiding citizens”.

He added: “It respects the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of Americans, and at the same time it ensures that law enforcement has the tools to target radical Islamic terrorists. If there is probable cause to suspect an individual of working with terrorists, seeking to injure or murder other Americans, we need to have the tools to prevent those attacks before they occur.”

Available here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/13/bill-banning-nsa-from-bulk-collecting-phone-calls-goes-to-vote

I've seen other commentators that would dispute this interpretation by Cruz of the Freedom Act's constitutional issues.  Judge Napolitano, for example, thinks it is still goes over the 4th Amendment line and in fact does not rely on probable cause.  

However, Cruz is smart on Constitutional law.  I'd be surprised to find he was wrong about this.  I do know the law went through a bunch of edits, enough to make some original supporters waver.  So it's even harder to estimate which stage of the bill's evolution his comments are about.  For example, there was language in a Senate version that requires a finding of reasonable suspicion (as opposed to probable cause) that a search term is connected with terrorism, and the definition of search terms isolates to specific individuals.  Whereas the House version supposedly went soft on linking the search terms to specific individuals, which constitutes a loophole big enough to fly an Aeroflot Jetliner through.

Put another way, I think he can end up showing his support of these reforms would be constitutionally sound, a good combination of making our terrorist tracking effective while preserving the constitutional rights of innocent Americans.  But the Rand Paul crowd is going to pander to populist simplifications. Dramatically throwing the baby out with the bathwater will win you some votes during an election cycle, even if it isn't very thoughtful.  And of course the pro-bulk data collection crowd (Walker et al) are apparently willing to sell out our constitutional rights if the price is right.

The bigger problem for Cruz is that the legislative process is corrosive to the good intentions of the original sponsors. That doesn't mean the intentions are bad.  But at some point you have to deal with the present reality. I would not be at all surprised if the undertow from that messy legislative fight draws Cruz into reformulating his position on the legislation, out of concern for the optics.  His convictions will not have changed, but his opponents' simplistic alternatives (the false dilemma of all or nothing) will make him vulnerable to being mischaracterized by both sides.  The hawks will say he's letting terrorists escape the net, the anti-hawks will say he's not supporting the Constitution.  Both will be wrong.  But try selling that to the low info voter.

Difficult situation, but ultimately, especially in the debates, I think he'll be able to make his case and win folks over.

Peace,

SR

[SoConPubbie]

Thanks for that in-depth analysis SR.