31–40 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly think that between POTUS Rand Paul and NSA mass surveillance programs, the latter is the leser of two evils. It would be very nice to see other candidates making similar pledges though.
No explanation in this comment either
However, this dovish attitude failed to express itself before when it came to ISIS - just as it is likely to fail in the face of the Wolfowitz Doctrine - the primary US national security concern has been for the past 25 years that there should be no nation that grows mightily enough to challenge the United States. The defense industry is so bent on this doctrine, and the US allies and obligations so tangled up in it, it would take at least a full 8 years of effort to unravel. What's more, these absolutely radical changes to the United States would alter it inexorably (I'm not saying terribly) from its current state (perhaps closer to 1800's traditional America).
Provided the current challenges to US power, a retirement of global bullying would seem to represent a peaceful option in the short term - but its exactly the sort of thing that causes long term defense strategists heart attacks.
What's more - the NSA capabilities means are disjoint from their ends. I'm not sure whether Paul means to say that he would reverse the NSA's ends to apply their capabilities toward American citizens: thus ending surveillance - but then only by the same sort of policy that is represented by the FISA courts. He could possibly mean that he would scale back the NSA's means, but doing so would be absolutely untenable to anyone close to Washington especially as cyber is seen as one of the key weak areas of US defense. On this note does anyone know who would make up Rand's security council? Is he proposing to elect general doves?
Overall, the statement that he would end surveillance means nothing. We need to know how he would propose to end it. What would it entail? What trade-offs are being made on interacting fronts?
I applaud the lip service though. Even if it's bunk, let's hear some more promises to end mass surveillance. (I'd also like them to mention the DEA, FBI and other intelligence orgs - it ain't just NSA). Clinton?
I understand that Rand Paul is heavily into the "rights" of corporations. Is that actually true? I personally am rather more worried about corporate surveillance than NSA surveillance. That's why I pay cash for everything, and take pains to blackhole web analytics servers with my hosts file.
Corporations are not as worrisome as government because their power to act on that data is less. No company in america is going to bust down my door with rifles or throw me in prison because I think things they don't like. The worst they can do (assuming the government doesn't totally break down) is refuse to do business with me. But the government can do a lot worse and have a history of doing a lot worse.
[1]: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/10/15/florissant-police-arr... [2]: http://gizmodo.com/5524843/police-seize-jason-chens-computer...
It almost sounds too good to be true.
Given he was one of the Senators forcing the government shutdown based on values, I suspect he is one of the more honest politicians. That being said, an honest politician... It's almost like we need another word other than politician.
The man is such a disaster in so many other ways, that getting one thing right is more of a half-cup of punch in a turd-bowl.
Could you expand? Your comment doesn't really add anything to the conversation, expand my knowledge, or even explain why anyone should value your opinion... I don't mean to be rude, but it was a rather harsh comment, without much (if any) addition to the conversation.
But in the end it will be just that, a mildly entertaining distraction. Rand Paul has no chance, and even if he were to be elected President in a fluke, nothing much would change.
I understand that Rand Paul is heavily into the "rights" of corporations. Is that actually true? I personally am rather more worried about corporate surveillance than NSA surveillance. That's why I pay cash for everything, and take pains to blackhole web analytics servers with my hosts file.
Presumably Rand Paul, like many Republicans (and no small number of Democrats), accepts the idea that people can exercise their rights through government-registered entities which they own, called "corporations". These are entities without intrinsic rights, but a well-known intellectual framework called "corporate personhood" which dates back to some of our earliest jurisprudence in this nation says that you treat th…
It almost sounds too good to be true.
Given he was one of the Senators forcing the government shutdown based on values, I suspect he is one of the more honest politicians. That being said, an honest politician... It's almost like we need another word other than politician.
I mean, that did happen didn't it?