Skip to comments.Dick Cheney: Rand Paul is wrong on government surveillance
Posted on 07/19/2013 11:10:19 PM PDT by WilliamIII
click here to read article
Oh, yeah, Dick Cheney, the guy who gave blessings to Judge Greer’s killing of Schiavo... What a hero.
The lithmus test is that Cheney would be against YOU AND I getting a lawyer and drones of our own to supervise our government and his own shenanigans in his tower of cushy empire chicken hawk GOPe RINOs.
THe problem is that the like of Dick Cheney make the like of RAnd needed as a lawyers.
Whenever a government is in so much encroaching that people feel the need to have a lawyer 24 7 to protect their right each time a cop is around, we got a problem.
IT should not be that way, but now it is that we have to find the muster to supervise our own government back.
This is no go and should be somewhat of a test of how far this war has gone crazy and mismanaged because of cowardice in the face of Islam.
Father protecting daughter, gonna get messy.
“However in this case Cheney is supporting Obama as a side effect.”
I respectfully disagree. They’re two sides of the same coin. Neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism aren’t all that different in practice. Both support essentially unlimited government.
I’ve been saying for years now that Bush’s ROP nonsense set us back 25 years in appropriately dealing with Islam.
Dick Cheney is wrong and Rand Paul is right.
Paul believes in the Constitution’s provision that a warrant be issued specifically detailing the wwwwwh’s of a search.
I see the Constitution as our guiding document, and if Cheney or anyone wants it changed, then they are free to pursue and amendment. The “Fisa” court is an attempt to amend the constitution by legislative vote IF it’s given ANY authority to short-circuit that constitutional requirement.
We don’t have secret courts issuing secret, rushed warrants in the Constitution. Anything in the Bill of Rights should be held to a HIGHER standard and not to a lower one.
Some say this makes us vulnerable to terrorists. I disagree. If they’ve only found a terrorist plan by painstaking research or field work, then the extra few days to do this properly is no impediment.
If they have discovered an act to be carried out against the US, then the President is the Commander in Chief, and he has the authority to make immediate strikes to protect our security.
At one time I thought Cheney actually stood for Free America, I now know I was 100% wrong! Cheney was the worst sort to be near the seat of power when the bona-fide dimwit GWB was Prez. Cheny sat in the DC and ordered the US Air defense to stand down. Cheney promoted the ill conceived ME takeover, Cheney/Bush don’t give a damn about this country as they refused to deal w/ the border and prosecuted Border Patrol Agents that tried to do their jobs! Don’t get me started on their precious ROP!
FU cheney! This guy should be tried for war crimes and treason.
Dick Cheney, GHWB, and GWB were all Ford supporters in 1976; GHWB had to keep quiet as he was in a diplomatic assignment in China at the time. Ford said his best contribution to the American people was John Paul Stevens.
Between Rand Paul and Dick Cheney, I think I will go with Rand Paul.
We have lost and maimed enough heroes for WHAT? We have been meddling in countries that have no U.S. national security interest. Protect Israel, to hell with the rest of them. Bombs not boots, when necessary.
Lets see, we got secret judges making secret decisions and secret enforcement and only one side gets to present their case to them and 99% they win against no opposition. And under Obama.Search warrants have to be disclosed. They are limited in scope and duration. And if the police get a warrant to search my house they eventually have to leave it; they don't get to stand around watching just in case I later do something they don't like.
To be fair, these decisions are for the approximate equivalent of search warrants. I don't recall the target of a proposed search warrant ever being given the opportunity to show why it should not be granted.
I think I will stick with the 4th Amendment.
We already are. Our country is dying before our eyes.
Not sure if we will ever recover.
Screw cheney, he supports globalism, gay marriage, and amnesty.
Of course it is important to know what a Nation’s “Enemies” are up to.
The key word here is “Enemies”.
Spy on America’s “Enemies” all you want.
The NSA, IRS, EPA, DOJ, TSA, HSA, CIA, and other Harassment and Surveillance has been targeting AMERICAN CITIZENS, and for exercising their 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights.
My point was simply that the issuance of warrants has never been subject to contention by the object of the warrant.
Not that these warrants are a good or constitutional idea.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “general warrants” as issued under the Crown. These warrants bear an uncomfortable resemblance.
“The Fourth Amendment prohibits general warrants as issued under the Crown. These warrants bear an uncomfortable resemblance.”
But its for your safety and the chilldruuun.
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Here's the passage at issue: In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out. Let's leave aside for now the insulting, utterly asinine, sickening, inexcusable use of the phrase "war caucus" to describe those (including Reagan!) who supported the mujaheddin against the Soviets. That word choice alone is almost entirely disqualifying for its purveyor to ever be president. Instead, let's just look at a little history here -- because the ignorance evident in this paragraph is truly astonishing. One would be hard pressed to find even a single historian, whether right, left, or center, who would argue anything other than that the Soviet failure in Afghanistan was not just a huge factor, but probably an essential one, in the Soviets' ultimate loss of the Cold War. The mujaheddin did much to help bleed the Soviets dry, at a comparatively negligible cost to the United States (for smuggled military hardware and some intelligence). "We all know how well that worked out," said Sen. Paul, dismissively, of the work of our "war caucus" to support the mujaheddin. Yes, we do: It played a key role in helping us win the Cold War. Anybody who doesn't understand that is either foolish or invincibly ignorant. Second, it is a myth that the United States "armed bin Laden." False, false, false. It is also a falsehood to say that bin Laden was a major player within the mujeheddin or in the anti-Soviet war effort at all. Finally, it is false even to say that the Afghani effort against the Soviets was primarily, or even largely, about "jihad." It was a defensive effort against armed invaders, not an offensive effort by "radicals" in the name of Allah.[Posted on 02/09/2013 7:33:41 AM PST by LSUfan]
If Ron Paul supporters wish to spam attack FR, our members, our Commander-in-Chief, our war effort, etc, please feel free to do it elsewhere. Antiwar activism is no more welcome on FR than is abortion activism, gay rights activism, gun control activism or any other leftist/socialist cause.[Posted on 10/23/2007 10:41:04 PM PDT Jim Robinson]
The problem for the government here is the difference between intelligence gathering and criminal investigation.
Intelligence gathering by definition requires looking at an enormous mass of material to determine which of it requires more careful observation. Look at the criticism of the government after 9/11 for not having prevented the attacks. The only way they could conceivably have done so is by separating the signal of the attackers plot out of a nearly infinite amount of background noise.
I suspect a major reason why the NSA is looking at “everything,” is political correctness. Somewhat similar to searching everybody by the TSA.
Can’t focus on the more likely dangers, that would be profiling. So they are forced to gather data on everybody if they want to have data on the real threats.
Not saying they’re right in doing so, just that this is the dynamic at work.
Yeah, he’s king of the chickenhawks. Lieberman is Queen. Honorable mention goes to Frank Gaffney. He makes McCain look like a pacifist and he also got five deferments. And don’t forget Bolton.
In protecting his daughter, Dick is overlooking the purpose of the spying. Perhaps had the Republicans been as willing as their counterparts to use their intelligence gathering to fix the news and the elections we wouldn’t have had the current government mess.
He who controls the information and the information providers has some latitude in how the world runs.
You gotta be kidding me! Every one of the abuses & overreach by 0dumb0 were put in place by pandering dumb ass GW Bush and Dick Cheney. Ben Franklin described it accurately when he said those who sacrifice freedom for security, end up with neither. That's exactly where we are today. The NSA has not protected us from ANY terrorist threats or attacks. In fact they couldn't even protect us from the Boston Marathon bombers with all sorts of warnings posted about them.
You would rather go with NWO, CFR, pro-homo, pro-lesbian, pro-gay marriage, pro gubmint intrusion, pro-Islam "religion of peace", anti-TEA Party, anti-Christian, anti-conservative, Dick Cheney.
I would rather go with conservative Libertarian Rand Paul in a heart beat!
" We have to bug your granny's phone, your daughter's phone, your phone and your wife's phone...just in case you might be a terrorist.
Then, and only then, we will let you blow up Boston at your digression.
discretion.. but I digress.
And you muffed it. Completely. Whether it was incompetence, Saudi and Kuwaiti influence buying, or simply lack of willpower, you screwed the pooch, throwing thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars down the rathole.
So just shut up and go away.
I think I will go with the Constitution.
One of the problems with Cheney’s view is that it is somewhat hypocritical. The government is not doing much spying on the bad guys. All this is being used to control us. The preparations are against us. The people profiled are us. The people targeted for harassment are us.
And so on, ad nauseum.
Outside the country, the same government is supporting & funding terrorists. Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood. “Negotiations” with the Taliban. How long before Obozo starts funding the Taliban? Not as far fetched as one would think.
Thats possible but I don’t think so. They are doing this because they can. They now have the technology and the (unconstitutional) authority to do this. They sit back and build a case that they might be able to find an enemy this way and of course it fits into Bam bams agenda.
Its how govts and people in positions of power have always functioned when they don’t have any controls.
BTW FU NSA
Yep, still sticking with Rand.
I too support cheney, always have loved the guy...but its one thing to address the terrorism, its another not to call out Islam or the unsecured border.
God help us.
I’m right there with you on that. I have always liked Cheney, but the guy misses the mark by a mile here.
The Vietnam War was not like WWII. Literally everyone was doing what they could to stay out of it. If you start condemning folks who avoided it, you won’t have many people left from that period that you can support.
Et tu, Cheney?
What is it with these GOPers that, if they can’t at least support those that they should consider closest to them, they just can’t seem to keep their damn mouths shut and so end up siding with our enemies?
If you want to try and make it unconstitutional by rewriting the 4th amendment and getting that ratified...knock yourself out.
Two-thirds of the Congress wasnt here on 9/11, or for that period immediately after when we got into this program, Cheney said on Fox News Sunday. He later added: When you consider the possibility of somebody smuggling something like a nuclear device into the United States, it becomes very, very important to gather intelligence on your enemies and stop that attack before it ever gets launched.
Is just the old, "Trust me, you need to give up your freedom for security," nonsense all power mongers try to get past the people.
I was there on 911, Dick, and so were most Americans. We want to catch and kill the bad guys. We do not want to use the largest fishing expedition in history and make all Americans treated like criminals to do it.
That dog don't hunt in these parts, Dick.
Use the program specifically for those people you can get a probable cause and judge order/warrant based on. That will allow you to track and catch the bad guys and the people who may associate with them.
Otherwise, you are sounding more and more like the type of powermongers we are dedicated to fighting and to stopping. The temptation for abuse, as we have already seen, is simply far too great to unleash such a program on all Americans and their personal data and effects.
Definitely a true disappointment.
Bombs not boots, when necessary.
And let me also add to this post that this surveillance has nothing to do with security. It has everything to do with databasing as much information on each citizen as they possibly can.
I’m involved in healthcare and I see what is happening with “Meaningful Use.”
I knew that HIPAA had nothing to do with “patient privacy” as it was sold (Orwellian Newspeak) and everything to do with establishing the channels to have all of your healthcare information shared among dozens of federal bureaucracies.
You needed a Xanax for that cross-country flight? That’s an anti-anxiety prescription. Maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to purchase that firearm.
HIPAA set up the precedent to share that personal, private information. Socialist Medicine under this administration is establishing the actual databases to collect and disseminate that information.
“Meaningful Use” ensures that a large amount of personal data IS captured and that it is captured in such a format that multiple databases (from multiple agencies) can tap into it.
Wake up, people.
Just like the IRS scandal was allowed to be leaked in order to dry up funding and vocal support for conservatives in 2014, the NSA scandal was leaked to shut you up in terms of speaking out against an Orwellian state.
The unAffordable Care Act has nothing to do with affordability and nothing to do with care. It has everything to do with destroying all vestiges of private healthcare and putting the state in control of that and, through healthcare, through just about all aspects of your life.
I just can’t buy people like Bush/Cheney/McCain who profess such intense concern over “national security” to the point of this massive domestic NSA data-mining, yet have been happily complicit in leaving the borders so wide open for year after year.
Seeing that Rand Paul is the only one who is actually standing up to the GOPE and the DNC, I think I’ll go with Rand Paul.
Actually 9/12 is the time phraseology. We are still living in a 9/10 USA. Iv’e always believed we should have taken care of
things HERE first by expelling Muslims and illegals.
That WAS the moment of “moral clarity”.
Instead , they put the burden of less freedoms ON Americans.
Just because I prefer one person over another I’m a lib ... BS and I say again BS. I’m as conservative as it gets. I voted for Sarah Palin for crying out loud and am a lifetime member of the Tea Party ... waiting for the establishment a conservative third party. I’m a lib? BS
So true. But more than the country, they had the whole civilized world with them.
A couple of months after 9/11, I was reading a magazine article written by an American who happened to be in Greece on 9/11. Greeks were going up to him and saying "we're all Americans now."
Many folks don't know this, but soon after 9/11 the Europeans invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty, the attack-on-one-is-an-attack-all Article. NATO was ready to go all-in with us.
But Bush declined their help. That was incomprehensible, and almost criminally stupid.
Excellent post !
Dick Cheney is wrong.
Actually, I was still on active duty way back when Dick was in the first Bush administration. I loved the guy. Now, no more. I have lost all respect I ever had for Dick. He has dropped off my radar. I would never support him if he did run for president back in the day. Feel how you might, I refuse to like him any more.
Why not instead think for yourself and decide the issue based on the evidence?
A target of a search warrant is given the opportunity to show why a warrant should not be granted afterwards. That's the check to avoid unreasonable warrants.
Looks to me like no such check exits for what the NSA is doing.