|
 |
Posted on 05/20/2015 11:10:21 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Ted Cruz has made it clear on the campaign trail: He’s an unapologetic, uncompromising conservative with no tolerance for the “mushy middle.”
But when it comes to renewing the country’s anti-terror laws, Cruz is taking the middle ground.
As Republicans debate whether to renew the post-9/11 PATRIOT Act, Cruz is staking out a position between two of his main rivals, the hawkish Marco Rubio and the libertarian-leaning Rand Paul.
The Texas freshman is renewing his push for a bill to end the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection program while also temporarily extending elements of the PATRIOT Act, a measure that is opposed by Rubio and Paul, albeit for different reasons. Rubio says the controversial bulk data program, which leaker Edward Snowden revealed to the news media, is paramount to a strong national defense, while Paul says the PATRIOT Act needs to be repealed root and branch because it infringes on civil liberties.
Cruz suggests a more moderate approach is needed.
“We need to walk and chew gum at the same time,” he said in the Capitol on Wednesday. “We need to both be vigorous in protecting the security of our country, and in particular, making sure we have the tools to stop acts of terrorism before they occur. But at the same time, we have an obligation to honor the Bill of Rights.”
Competing against a crowded field of Republicans whose foreign policy views span a wide spectrum, Cruz is trying to carve out his own niche on national defense, giving him a position more nuanced than his sharply conservative views on domestic policy.
The three men — Rubio, Cruz and Paul — have been mostly aligned in their short time in the Senate. But the battle over civil liberties and national security is a rare instance in which the three men have disparate opinions in a hot-button debate.
The bill that Cruz endorsed, known as the USA Freedom Act, has prompted sharp objections from leading Republicans, who call it a misguided approach that will undercut critical national security efforts.
“The reason the program is so effective today is we can match a telephone number to a terrorist telephone number and know where to look — any delay in that could result in an attack somewhere in the world,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “No author of this bill can in any way, shape or form prove this is as effective.”
Burr pointedly said that Paul’s and Cruz’s positions weaken their standing on national defense.
“It tells me that they don’t want to learn what bulk data collection is,” Burr deadpanned.
Rubio added that ending the program would mean there is “one less program available to us to identify potential terrorists and dismantle their network before they kill thousands of Americans.”
Asked if the program should include safeguards to protect privacy, Rubio said: “By and large, there’s no evidence of mass abuse of those programs.”
The jostling over the PATRIOT Act comes at a critical juncture in the debate in Congress and the campaign trail. Congress must reauthorize three existing provisions by May 31, including the bulk data collection program. Without an extension of the law, two other measures would also expire: the so-called lone wolf provision, which allows the government to surveil potential terrorists who aren’t directly connected to terrorist cells; and a provision allowing federal intelligence officials to use roving wiretaps to monitor suspects who rapidly change their location or communication device.
Critics say that the sweeping nature of the PATRIOT Act allows the government to trample on the constitutional rights of private citizens.
“I think probably, there are 15-20 people that are aware enough of the Constitution that they want to defend it against encroachment,” said Paul, who is making the fight to end the PATRIOT Act a centerpiece of his campaign, referring to his Senate colleagues.
But Cruz rejected the idea of repealing the PATRIOT Act and said he would not back a clean extension of the three expiring provisions, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Burr have proposed to do for 5½ years.
The USA Freedom Act — which was drafted by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a GOP ally of Cruz’s — would extend the three expiring provisions until December 2019. It would ban the bulk collection of data and instead narrow the scope on the kinds of information the NSA can surveil on telephone calls, while placing new oversight on a secret court that reviews classified intelligence decisions.
A similar version of that plan was blocked on a 58-42 vote in November, with McConnell, now the GOP majority leader, Rubio and Paul voting against it. Cruz endorsed the measure.
“I think the American people understand that it is entirely possible to protect our national security and vigorously target terrorists — and at the same time, respect the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” Cruz said Wednesday.
|
|
Ted Cruz Ping! As we speak, Rand Paul is now speaking on the Senate Floor.
““I think the American people understand that it is entirely possible to protect our national security and vigorously target terrorists — and at the same time, respect the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” Cruz said Wednesday.”
I think that about covers all the ground that need be covered, yes!
LOL... mushy middle.
I take Cruz’s mushy middle over Rubio’s homo/immigrant loving and Paul’s take a stand on nothing concrete every day.
Thanks for another good article. Sounds like Cruz is trying to follow the Constitution.
Our next President, Ted Cruz, is taking a common sense approach on the issue. He’ll be able to crush islam with his wise strategy.
When the two poles of the spectrum on the issue are so opposite, how can a rationale position be anywhere else than the middle?!
And it certainly is not "mushy". It's right on. We can do both: Protect our security and our First Amendment rights.
Paul is right. It needs to be repealed and stake driven in its heart. I can live with Cruz’s half a loaf I guess. The bulk data collection is the worst of it.
Of course Scotty Walker wants the whole thing extended en toto.
The Patriot Act needs to go. It is a blatant violation. Cruz needs to quit waffling and come out in favor of scrapping the entire damn mess.
Ted could have made noise with this secret trade agreement being rammed down our throats but is silent.
I don’t approve of any “secret” trade deals. Trade agreements never seem to benefit the USA over the long-term.
Why must it be secret? This is bs.
Jeff Sessions is the only one deserving of my vote out of the house of free traitors.
Hmmm...some around here insist that the NSA is the enemy of every God fearing American. Does this mean Cruz is the anti-Christ?
Doesn’t sound like Cruz is waffling. He is promoting legislation that will safeguard our security without abusing the Bill of Rights. It’s not an easy balance when so much is at stake trying to save lives.
I don’t get too upset if they want to track anything I do. They’ll die from boredom.
You do know that Sessions voted for the trade bill even though it failed the first round? We’ll see what he does on this vote coming up.
I agree. He has the wisdom to weigh security and the rights of Americans to strike the right balance.
Unlike the last six years, President Cruz will listen to our military leaders to adopt the best strategy. I have a lot of confidence in his ability to make sound decisions.
Good job, in for the good fight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.