Hacker News Reader

Comment by spenvo | Hacker News Reader

Because visiting the NSA would enlighten him in any way?

Critics of the organization would likely be granted zero visibility into their decision making process. Just look how they have treated their own high level employees who voiced concern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake).

It would be a waste of a day. Maybe he could have met with Clapper - the man that perjured himself before Congress. Or Keith Alexander - the profiteer who is making millions off surveillance tech he was developing while head of the NSA. ( <-- That's the guy that made policy decisions on how invasive surveillance should be. FML) If the cronies want his ear: they should come to his office.

If anything, a visit to the NSA would bring negative connotations in the public's eye.

View on HN

What harm is there in hearing what they've got to say? If it's bullshit, then it's bullshit.

Refusing to take a day to head down and see their presentation isn't a principled stand, it's being concerned with your brand.

If politicians don't care about their brand, they've pursued the wrong career.

The visible nature of a visit would be exploited. He'd be painted as guilty by association. Politics is petty... so much so that, in this case, a superPAC-funded negative campaign ad (running 24-7 in battleground states) would say: "Rand Paul visited the NSA 6 times since he's been a Senator, yet he preaches reform. So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA?'"

Let's keep in mind: there's no way if OP's story or sources are true --- maybe he has met with NSA -- and if he has, I'd hope he wouldn't go around blabbing about it, for the above reason ^^

"Senator Rand Paul was invited 6 times to talk to the NSA about its anti-terror data collection programs. 6 times Senator Rand Paul refused to even listen to the patriots working to keep our country safe, yet he claims to know what's best for our national security. Is this someone we can really trust as president?"

The bullshit can be written however. If you're taking the subject seriously (and it's a subject that ought to be taken quite seriously), it's your job to hear what the various parties have to say, even if you're sure you won't agree. It's his job as senator.

>So let's ask you Senator: 'why are you in bed with the NSA?

Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise, and being associated with it isn't a scandal which would tarnish a presidential candidate to any degree worth being concerned about - associating with the NSA is part of a senator's job. It would definitely be a president's job.

What he should be concerned about is giving the appearance of making principled stands based on willful ignorance. If he intends to run the country, he can't simply pretend the parts of the government he doesn't like don't exist.

> Despite what HN believes, the NSA isn't a criminal enterprise

Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal? Maybe if its employees engaged in intimidation of journalists, or lying under oath? Or would they need to burn a flag and strangle a bald eagle?

I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal. I'm also not a member of the US government, though, so even if I wanted to see the NSA burned to the ground, it wouldn't really be relevant.

For a senator, much less a theoretical president, not having a close relationship with intelligence agencies really isn't an option, especially if he intends to change or reform them.

> I do consider its actions illegal, but I don't consider the agency illegal

So it's like a waste management company that's a front for Mafia activity like extortion and racketeering. The company isn't illegal, just the activities of a tiny fraction of its employees.

Yes, probably. Which implies Rand Paul is running for Godfather.

> Just curious, how much of the constitution would the NSA have to violate for you to consider its actions illegal?

This. What was violated? What has been done that is illegal? Please, I beg you, give me something.

> What was violated? What has been done that is illegal?

The whole mass metadata surveillance program was illegal; what was violated was the Constitution, insofar as, even assuming that the government could Constitutionally act in the manner the executive did, such authority of the Government as a whole would rest on authorities granted to Congress under the Constitution, not to the executive independently.

Or have we already forgotten that the mass metadata surveillance program was ruled by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to not have been authorized by the Patriot Act provisions the NSA relied on for it? [0]

[0] https://www.epic.org/amicus/fisa/215/aclu/Opinion-2nd-Cir.pd...

You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all. Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated?

> SENATOR TOM COTTON: The program has been approved 40 times by 15 different, independent federal judges based on 36 years of Supreme Court precedent. It has been approved by two presidents of both parties. [0]

[0] http://www.npr.org/2015/05/07/404994217/appeals-court-rules-...

> You didn't really answer my question. Actually, you didn't answer it at all.

Yes, you asked two questions, and I answered both of them:

Q. What was violated?

A. The Constitution, in that even if the bulk metadata collection program did not intrude on reserved rights and therefore could Constitutionally be done by the government, it would require authorization by Congress for the Executive Branch to have authority to do it, and, although the Executive has claimed it was authorized by Section 215, it was not, as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Q. What was done that was illegal?

A. The entire bulk metadata collection program, for the reasons stated above.

> Because I'm not very bright, can you please spell out, in very simple terms, what right was violated?

The most fundamental political right on which the entire American system is based: the right to popular sovereignty, that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)

> that is, the right to a government in which each part of the government exercises only those powers assigned to it by the people (in the case of the US, either directly through the Constitution, or through acts of other parts of government themselves acting through their Constitutional powers.)

This is what I am confused about.

I am not clear on this point. I am wondering if someone can explain to me where in the Constitution something was violated. According to the source I've linked a few times, I don't understand.

To be blunt, everyone seems to throw around "violated the Constitution" without ever citing the Constitution.

> What harm is there in hearing what they've got to say?

Having the justification for a program of this nature be a secret is not compatible with democracy. So if they have something to say they should tell it to The Washington Post.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com