Mr. President, there comes to a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer.
That time is now. And i will not let the Patriot Act, the most un-patriotic of acts, go unchallenged.
At the very least we should debate, we should debate whether or not we are going to relinquish our rights or whether or not we are going to have full and able debate over whronts we can live within -- whether or not we can live within the constitution or whether or not we have to go around the constitution.
The bulk collection of all americans' phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. The second appeals court has ruled till legal.
The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end it through executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is illegal and yet he does nothing.
He says, well, congress can get rid of the Patriot Act. Congress can get rid of the bulk collection. And yet he has the power to do it at his fingertips. He began this illegal program. The court has informed him that the program is illegal. He has every power to stop it and yet the president does nothing.
Justice Brandeis wrote that the right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights, most prized among civilized men. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to privacy. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to be left alone.
Technical note for those not familiar with U.S. Senate style: the first "Mr. President" refers to the President Pro Tempore of the senate (currently Sen. Orin Hatch), not the President of the United States.
To those who argue this submission isn't relevant for a tech audience: the Senators in this hearing are discussing backdoors and encryption right now, which is pretty relevant actually, and not something we often see on the Senate floor.
One of his proposed amendments is to disallow governments mandating products change their source code to allow entities access into the data (e.g., a backdoor for the NSA). So basically, allowing encryption, which would be huge.
I'm not one of those "everything Obama does is wrong" people, but the man has been frightfully wrong on Police State issues, IMO, as well as persecution of whistle-blowers.
If he and his friends can keep talking, they can keep going until cloture is invoked. That takes a couple of days and 60 senators. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture#Procedure for the exact procedure.
That's the idea. So long as he has the floor, they can't vote. But he can only keep the floor so long as he keeps talking.
Can he realistically achieve anything here?
One person can't usually achieve more than a political statement, because one person can't usually talk for long enough to have a meaningful impact. Successful filibusters usually involve the cooperation of a number of people.
> How does this work, only if he stops can the process continue?
The senate isn't actually discussing or voting on the USA Freedom Act today (floor schedule is for discussions of an unrelated trade bill) and this discussion can be cut off tomorrow anyway, so this isn't technically a filibuster (yet).
He isn't filibustering unless he goes past 1pm tomorrow. The fact that he has started now, rather than tomorrow at 1pm demonstrates that he isn't serious - it's just an insubstantial, disingenuous grab for attention.
Flagging legitimate threads by some members is the worst thing on HN. A thread can have a hundred upvotes but just a few flags will move it out from the front-page, effectively killing the discussion. Something has to be done about this, i.e. ignore flaggings once a thread gets 15 points and maybe alert the mods so they can make human decision on whether leave it or flag out.
That isn't far from the way things work now, and worked in the case of this thread.
I'd add: (1) the community doesn't necessarily agree about what's legitimate. I don't see any evidence that the flags on this one are less in good faith than the upvotes; (2) upvotes can't be the only factor determining HN's front page; that would make it consist of controversy, gossip, and fashion, and undermine the reason why readers come here in the first place.
Well this specific submission seems highly relevant, and so far it hasn't been flagged off the front page yet :)
OT: I agree there is a lot of downvoting of submissions and comments with a political slant. Anything that's phrased as being slightly partisan seems to be immediately downvoted by people from the other side of the political spectrum because they don't agree with it.
I'm unclear as to how this thread is legitimate, personally. Doesn't seem to really fit with HN. I'm no fan of the Patriot Act either, but this belongs somewhere like Reddit.
Ugh...I can't stand this. Says Senator Lee, "we ask you, Mr. President." As though he bears full responsibility for all of this. Pathetic political grandstanding. As a reminder, which administration gave birth to the Patriot Act?
In formal debate all remarks are supposed to be addressed to the president of the deliberative body. In this case "Mr. President" may well be the President of the Senate, not the President of the United States.
(Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to listen to the stream yet, so I don't actually know whom Sen. Lee is addressing. In the top remark, Sen. Rand is most likely addressing the President of the Senate.)
As others have pointed out, "Mr. President" is not referring to the President of the United States, but of the Senate.
That said, anytime an extension to the Patriot Act crosses their desk, and the President of the United States doesn't veto it, they are bearing responsibility.
Point understood; however, when you do have the full capability to end something, and you don't, then you do have full responsibility for the present day situation.
[+] [-] swamp40|11 years ago|reply
Mr. President, there comes to a time in the history of nations when fear and complacency allow power to accumulate and liberty and privacy to suffer.
That time is now. And i will not let the Patriot Act, the most un-patriotic of acts, go unchallenged.
At the very least we should debate, we should debate whether or not we are going to relinquish our rights or whether or not we are going to have full and able debate over whronts we can live within -- whether or not we can live within the constitution or whether or not we have to go around the constitution.
The bulk collection of all americans' phone records all of the time is a direct violation of the fourth amendment. The second appeals court has ruled till legal.
The president began this program by executive order. He should immediately end it through executive order. For over a year now, he has said the program is illegal and yet he does nothing.
He says, well, congress can get rid of the Patriot Act. Congress can get rid of the bulk collection. And yet he has the power to do it at his fingertips. He began this illegal program. The court has informed him that the program is illegal. He has every power to stop it and yet the president does nothing.
Justice Brandeis wrote that the right to be left alone is the most cherished of rights, most prized among civilized men. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to privacy. The fourth amendment incorporates this right to be left alone.
[+] [-] abtinf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevenmays|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randomname2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joslin01|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
Civil asset forfeiture
Patriot Act
Broad surveillance
Mass incarceration
War on drugs
etc
[+] [-] rsync|11 years ago|reply
If he could gain just one more vote by saying the exact opposite of everything above, he would do it. And so would "your guy". Or gal.
Even if this assertion of mine is note technically true, you should behave as if it is.
[+] [-] vowelless|11 years ago|reply
But it does give me a bad certificate warning.
[+] [-] bradbatt|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Istof|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PopsiclePete|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dvdfvo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|11 years ago|reply
That's the idea. So long as he has the floor, they can't vote. But he can only keep the floor so long as he keeps talking.
Can he realistically achieve anything here?
One person can't usually achieve more than a political statement, because one person can't usually talk for long enough to have a meaningful impact. Successful filibusters usually involve the cooperation of a number of people.
[+] [-] state_machine|11 years ago|reply
The senate isn't actually discussing or voting on the USA Freedom Act today (floor schedule is for discussions of an unrelated trade bill) and this discussion can be cut off tomorrow anyway, so this isn't technically a filibuster (yet).
[+] [-] TD-Linux|11 years ago|reply
mms://207.7.154.95/G1075_002?wmcache=0
[+] [-] dimino|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beached|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akshatpradhan|11 years ago|reply
http://www.c-span.org/video/?326084-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-...
[+] [-] akulbe|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hurin|11 years ago|reply
While there are certainly highly up-voted topics that deserve to go to the bottom for other reasons - I don't think this is one of them.
[+] [-] WalterSear|11 years ago|reply
He isn't filibustering unless he goes past 1pm tomorrow. The fact that he has started now, rather than tomorrow at 1pm demonstrates that he isn't serious - it's just an insubstantial, disingenuous grab for attention.
[+] [-] mayneack|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zxcvcxz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powellzer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TDL|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakobdabo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
I'd add: (1) the community doesn't necessarily agree about what's legitimate. I don't see any evidence that the flags on this one are less in good faith than the upvotes; (2) upvotes can't be the only factor determining HN's front page; that would make it consist of controversy, gossip, and fashion, and undermine the reason why readers come here in the first place.
[+] [-] randomname2|11 years ago|reply
OT: I agree there is a lot of downvoting of submissions and comments with a political slant. Anything that's phrased as being slightly partisan seems to be immediately downvoted by people from the other side of the political spectrum because they don't agree with it.
[+] [-] GlickWick|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godgod|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] davesque|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rsfinn|11 years ago|reply
(Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to listen to the stream yet, so I don't actually know whom Sen. Lee is addressing. In the top remark, Sen. Rand is most likely addressing the President of the Senate.)
[+] [-] bdcravens|11 years ago|reply
That said, anytime an extension to the Patriot Act crosses their desk, and the President of the United States doesn't veto it, they are bearing responsibility.
[+] [-] adventured|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 13years|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lbarrett|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sliverstorm|11 years ago|reply