U.S. intelligence agencies testified to Congress that the USA Freedom Act gives them necessary new tools to identify and track the bad guys more effectively than currently possible without any need for bulk collection of telephone metadata held by the NSA on every law abiding American citizen.
If any think that Trump and Rubio can be defended on this issue, I ask my fellow FReepers to read the last sentence again and let it sink in.
Given the facts of the new law, providing more effective surveillance of bad guys with less violation of our right to privacy, what possible justification does a candidate have to support a gross invasion of privacy on this scale against every U.S. citizen? "Err on the side of security" is an invalid argument because it directly contradicts the conclusion drawn by our intelligence agencies that the USA Freedom Act better protects American citizens.
It would appear to me there are only two logical explanations for taking this indefensible position, either 1) the candidate lacks the necessary interest to become informed on the facts of a law vital to civil liberties and national security, or much worse 2) the candidate does not recognize a foundational principle set forth in the U.S. Constitution defining the relationship between citizen and government which places the people over their government. If the people have no right to privacy, the government rules over the people. The first explanation is inexcusable laziness in a campaign, while the second explanation is terrifying if true about a person seeking to be President of the United States.
On a slippery slope beginning at the top with all freedoms protected by the Constitution and descending down to big government tyranny totally controlling our lives, first Rubio, and now Mr. Trump reveal they are perfectly willing to keep the frame of discussion nearer tyranny (pushing the Overton Window down the slope) without reasonable justification from experts in our intelligence agencies.
Therefore, Trump and Rubio are both comfortable exerting overreach of power not vested in the Executive Branch by the Constitution. These are not candidates who can be expected as the next President to repudiate completely the dangerous precedent of extra-Constitutional executive lawlessness set by Obama and his administration.
The stance of Rubio and Trump on NSA domestic spying makes clear that past attempts to nullify parts of our foundational law are likely to be reinforced in some part through similar actions by either of these men if elected President.
If Democrat and Republican administrations in consecutive years violate the Constitution so egregiously, there will be no going back and the Republic as described in the U.S. Constitution will cease to exist. The election in 2016 is our last chance.
As with many issues, I don’t think Donald has given it thorough consideration.
Well said and well worth pondering.