Skip to comments.Ted Cruz: Letís not rush to judgment on NSA surveillance
Posted on 06/17/2013 12:57:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via the Examiner, a short but noteworthy clip insofar as it exposes a potential fault line between Cruz and Rand Paul. McCain lumps them together as “wacko birds” but I’m not so sure that’s true of Cruz on national-security issues. His alliance with Paul interests me because it strikes me as a personification of the uneasy libertarian/tea-party alliance. The groups overlap heavily on spending issues, and both are deeply suspicious of Obama’s expansion of government. The master stroke of Paul’s drone filibuster was that he found a sweet spot for both, making the philosophical case for due process while humiliating O for having turned into such a hypocrite about it. Even so, no matter how much Paul sometimes likes to pretend that the tea party is synonymous with libertarianism (for his own strategic reasons), various polls show that it just isn’t so. Tea partiers are more socially conservative than doctrinaire libertarians, they’re more likely to support entitlements, and they’re more traditionally Republican on defense/security issues. That’s not to say that they’re not becoming more libertarian — polls lately show Republicans are more skeptical about NSA surveillance than Democrats are, although that’s probably for partisan reasons — but they’re not all Ron Paul fans either. That’s why Rand is usually quick to claim the tea-party label. The more he gets TPers thinking of themselves as allied with him, then theoretically the more receptive they’ll be to his libertarian ideals.
McCain doesn’t seem to understand the difference between them but comparing Paul’s reaction to the NSA revelations to Cruz’s is instructive. Paul’s first instinct was to organize a class-action lawsuit and accuse the NSA of an “extraordinary invasion of [Americans'] privacy.” Cruz, by contrast, says the revelations are “cause for concern” but urges Fox viewers to reserve judgment until we know more about the programs. And from the looks of it here, his chief objection seems to be that this particular administration can’t be trusted with NSA’s surveillance tools in light of the IRS scandal, not necessarily that any administration can’t be trusted with it. He may very well end up joining Paul’s lawsuit, but I suspect that’ll be aimed at impressing libertarians whose votes he’ll need if he ends up running for president someday just as Rand often tempers his own libertarianism in order to impress more mainstream tea-party conservatives. Cruz’s ally, Sarah Palin (who returned to Fox this morning, although she doesn’t speak in this clip) seems to be taking a position similar to his lately. From her speech at the Faith and Freedom Conference on Saturday:
The scandals infecting this city, they are a symptom of a bigger disease, and it doesnt matter if its a Republican or a Democrat sitting atop a bloated boot on your neck, out of control government, everybody gets infected, no party is immune, Palin said. Thats why, I tell you, Im listening to those independents, those libertarians, who are saying, it is both sides of the aisle, the leadership, the good ol boys in the party on both sides of the aisle, they perpetuate the problem.…
Palin also took on the pandering, rewarding the rule breakers, still-no-border security, special interest written amnesty bill, especially ribbing Jeb Bush for his fertility comment yesterday. I think its kind of touchy territory to want to debate this over one races fertility over another, and I say that as someone whos kinda fertile herself.
Obama didnt evade Palins lashing, either. Where is our commander in chief? Palin asked. Were talking now more new interventions? I say, until we know what were doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what hes doingwell, chief, in these radical Islamic countries, arent even respecting basic human rights, when both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line Allah ak-barI say, let Allah sort it out.
I suspect Cruz would agree with every word, and that her former running mate would disagree with most or all of it. (Palin advocated “Cruz control” for Washington in the speech, in fact.) She doesn’t want any more interventions under a strategist as poor as Obama — but she’s not against intervention in principle. She wants America to listen more to the libertarians, but when it comes to the lousy Gang of Eight bill, she rightly opposes it for its weak border security — even though libertarians are famously comfortable with weak borders. None of this is contradictory; most tea partiers would, I take it, agree that America needs more libertarianism while maybe not quite so much as Ron Paul supporters would prefer. The point is, though, there are real differences between Cruz and Rand Paul and I think we’re getting a hint of one in the clip. And the longer the national debate stays stuck on liberty-versus-security issues, the more obvious I think those differences will be.
Oh, we be rushin’. The Under-30’s just know the Gov has nabbed their sexting photos and they’re P*SSED!!
Church Committee 2.0, here we come!
Both Cruz and Howard Johnson are right.
According to the ‘Mother Church’, there are four “cardinal virtues.”
You couldn’t be more wrong.
The feds absolutely trawl everyone’s communications .
Part of how they do it is to go after a target and request Whole Pipe access to a service providers network.
They have no client to protect and they do not minimize the information collected and stored.
IOW, They do not discard information that is not relevant to the request.
I gave a huge dissertation on the great Laz’s thread Saturday.
I don't deny he has a valid point. But the mere fact that one administration can't be trusted with the power means that we can't trust any of them with the power. Because we'll find out too late when that authority has been misused. So unless Cruz has a scheme on telling in advance when the abuse is going to happen, then for the safety of all our privacy this program has to stop. Now.
I think I saw it, but I might be mistaken; got a link to it?
If you want to know what laws make PRISM and other programs possible, as well the technology for how the gubmint swallows up everyone’s information go here
Cruz is wrong here...as the govt does not need to snoop on my elderly parents to find Islamic Terrorists
Although Cruz can be trusted to respect American citizens privacy......99.8% of his fellow pols cannot be trusted....which is why NSA is bad news
A lot of people on TV and many in the government are saying the feds NSA are not reading the content of our calls and emails so I expect this is those who want more proof. Cruz was the assistant attorney general for Bush. He said last week there were concerns of overreaches. Some, want the NSA to stop gathering Intel but that’s not what I am advocating. I am in support to do so under the constitutional authority. We face citizens who are completely in support of doing this. Low info voters etc. It depends on how one looks at this and how they decide to allow the court to rule.
The gov spies on us and not the terrorists and we aren’t supposed to have an opinion, Ted?
A Cruz statement from The Blaze last week:
If it is the case that the federal government is seizing millions of personal records about law-abiding citizens, and if it is the case that there are minimal restrictions on accessing or reviewing those records, then I think Mr. Snowden has done a considerable public service by bringing it to light.
I read the first paragraph, which was not easy.
then skimmed the rest.
Found just nothing that quoted Cruz.
So. . .
The revelations are cause for concern but urges Fox viewers to reserve judgment until we know more about the programs.
IOW, Ted Cruz -- already holding three aces -- is purposely understating the crushing revelations. Waiting for additional and more incriminating evidence of the trashing of the 4A by Big Brother and 0dinga.guv, then lower the boom on those responsible is clever. This demonstrates Cruz's patience and fairness.
“but urges Fox viewers to reserve judgment until we know more about the programs”
WTF. We know enough:
Exclusive: Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans
I hope Cruz doesn’t turn out to be a sell out.
I had a dream.
Off in the distance and approaching rapidly was a bus. Despite the distance I could clearly read a logo on the front of the bus.
The logo reads FREEREPUBLIC.COM
Standing beside the road I see Sarah Palin, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. They are discussing the latest NSA revelations. They are waiting for the bus, clearly with some apprehension. Sarah is heard to say “Who will be next ... So many”.
The bus draws closer, bearing down on our favorite three.
In a flash our favorite three becomes our favorite two. Sarah and Rand breath a sigh of relief. As the bus passes we catch our last glimpse of Ted, neatly positioned under the speeding bus
One problem is we let the left dictate “language” hence profiling is bad when in effect it is the best route to pursue any investigation/action. If your perpetrators are one-legged, red haired, white women over 40 why do you need to appear to be non-discriminating, it defies logic. Most illegal immigrants are mexican or some sort of latino, most all terrorists are muslim, see the pattern...
Why do Conservatives insist on eating their own? Why the endless fault finding with fellow Republicans over narrow issues?
You guys think you are fighting over the soul of the Republican Party, but you are really killing its body.
What more do we need to know? Just going by what has already been admitted (and we know it's worse than that) these surveillance techniques are as broad and overreaching as we can possibly imagine.
Am I supposed to feel better if they're archiving every electronic conversation I have, in perpetuity, as long as they promise not to ever misuse that information?
"Trust me, it's all for your own good" is a favorite excuse of the power-hungry Tyrant. The Founders, and rightly so, knew that, on general principle, such power should never routinely be placed in the hands of government! The potential for abuse is simply too great.
That's why they (and the People) tried to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Tyranny to arise even in the future, by adopting the Bill Of Rights, for example, and by crafting a Constitution which severely limited Federal power and responsibility.
Perpetual War Powers were specifically seen as a great threat to Liberty, and rightly so.
The loony left and the loony right cancel each other out. It's a wash.
To headlines: No. Rush to judgment.
Well apparently the war on terror isn’t over. Its just that all Americans have been judged as terrorists by the Regime.
In the final analysis, America’s profoundly powerful surveillance of the world is in effect, an empire. And do the American people really want to rule an empire, or are they content with just America?
The same question the British asked and answered.
It won't be the American people who rule that empire but a very small ruling class
“The loony left and the loony right cancel each other out”
Loony right huh? Well I guess you must be one of those moderates I keep hearing about.
What is your definition of “looney right”?
Ted is a a Sharp guy. I’m with you on this. There’s a lot more to this than meets the eye. Anyway. At this,point what line needs to be crossed to get Everyone’s attention has yet to be crossed yet. Frustrating. To many yets?? ;)
Yup. Another tip o' the iceberg. Cruz know enough not to be THE story when he doesn't have to.
Let's let this story bleeeed. When even the blind can't ignore the pool of blood, then its time to squeeze the story even more.
That term, "loony right" also struck me as odd as well.
The poster, bkepley, must be attending a Karl Rove/John McCain "bi-partisan moderate" Workshop with all their "good friends on the other side of the aisle."
Cruz / surveillance bump for later......
I would often agree with you but the increasing surveillance of our personal communications and, indeed, lives is not a narrow issue. It's at the absolute core of our liberty.
I won't freeze Cruz out just yet, but he'd better start showing a little more skepticism about the NSA or I'm solidly in Rand's camp. Rand has his faults, of course, but none of them abridge my liberty.
Lookin to be a Long Hot Summer. We live in interesting times.
Cruz, don’t drink the D.C. water!
Well said. Let me rephrase.
“Do the American people really want to pay the price for a very small ruling class to rule an empire?”
I don’t know. This statement is something I could easily identify with. The new one is one I would shy away from. No way.
Howard Johnson is right!
Well, if we're going to stay, and I think it's a big mistake......we're going to need a new sheriff. Now, who is it going to be?
Howard Johnson is right. We'll wire the governor.
Why don't we wire the governor to send us a sheriff?
Why should we get our own men killed?
Howard Johnson is right. We'll wire the governor.
Then let us pray for the deliverance of our new sheriff.
Will the congregation please rise?
Bush did a lot of things that I wouldn’t trust to Obama. That’s the problem with reliance on good leadership. The flakes always have a precedent.
>>Why the endless fault finding with fellow Republicans over narrow issues<<
The Fourth Amendment, border security and amnesty are NOT “narrow issues.”
Wait and see? Ted Cruz is coming precariously close to shutting the book on any trust I had left in the government.
More likely, he is waiting to see which way the wind blows.
Could you explain that in small words for those of us who aren’t lawyers?
The Obama Administration showed Ted Cruz what they got on him. That’s what.
I wonder what they got on Cruz.
Sarah Palin thinks she’s a different race from Latinos? Surprise, they’re Caucasians too!
Aside from that, I think Cruz is making an important point. The NSA surveillance was secretive but also almost unavoidable because everything is electronic now. But I don’t think even Obama dared (although his successor will) to get individual info out of it. And in any case, he didn’t need it, because he had all of the data voluntarily or mandatorily submitted by Americans - the IRS, state voter registration logs, etc. - that enabled him to target individuals.
This was Obama doing meta-data for political purposes. He and his minions were using the NSA for market research. He wanted to see the trends and know where to direct his political attacks. For him it was all about remaining in power.
I don’t think Snowden, an Obama voter, will connect him with this, so I hope somebody else does manage to make the connection.
I don’t trust ANYONE is DC. Cruz is becoming one of ‘them’.
Sure; for reference what I wrote:
the NSA surveillance is a clear, blatant violation of the 4th, 5th, and very-arguably 6th amendments this is, of course, not taking into acount that the system could easily be used to blackmail and is just begging to be abused in Ex Post Facto law. (If the 4th, 5th, and 6th don't protect you, why should the Ex Post Facto law prohibition?)The NSA surveillance is a violation of the 4th Amendment, obviously, because real things are being searched. The fifth is being violated because the content of your communication [your 'speech'] is being used against you, forcing you to testify against yourself — even the "we're only looking at metadata" case they claim [but I don't believe] is violative of the 5th in this way: your contacting someone [or them you] can flag you as a
The Sixth though requires that the charges brought against you are defendable; the FICA-
court is not, it is a closed and secret court [see the Star Chamber].
The way this could be [ab]used by lawmakers via Ex Post Facto law is obvious. One example: they could make expression of any
anti-government sentiment illegal and then filter the e-mails [and possibly phone-calls] for violators.
That’s my conclusion.
They’ve gotten to all of them.
They can make noises but they can’t cross the line.
Cruz, Palin, Lee ...
Um, sorry folks, the die is cast. Believe what you may. Put your trust in sources you accept.
I’ll trust Cruz, Palin, and Lee. I’ll not trust ANY interpretation.
Case in point: