Go Rand Paul. American HERO. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aUHh1iqe43w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rghhz_t5POo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes, he is also against the War on Drugs, unlike Obama (Who violently raids medical mar1juana facilities) HERO.
Obama is evil. His supporters are the dumbest people on Earth. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WYANybQlaUc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In doing so, Graham and the bill he supports — exactly like all those who supported Obama’s due-process-free assassination of Anwar Awlaki – have apparently decided simply to dispense with Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, which provides that nobody can be punished for treason without heightened due process requirements being met. In that regard, compare (a) Graham’s pronouncement (widely shared by those supporting Awlaki’s assassination) that “if you’re an American citizen and you betray your country, you’re not going to be given a lawyer” to (b) the Constitutional requirement in Art. III, Sec. 3 that “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” To deny a citizen the right to a lawyer and go to court on the ground that they’ve “betrayed their country” and thus deserve to be imprisoned without a trial (or, worse, to be assassinated without one) is as violent a betrayal of the U.S. Constitution as one can imagine, literally.
Retroactive immunity for telecoms that broke the law upheld by the ninth circuit court. However, the lawsuit filed against the NSA and subsequently dismissed has been remanded back to the lower courts. Slashdot link Note that this immunity provision is the same that Obama threatened to filibuster...but then did not.
Twilight zone, I swear. So the Obama admin, which has consistently defended warrantless wiretapping in the courts (and made use of it), has now drafted a "privacy bill of rights". Cognitive dissonance overload... Before you get all excited about the implications of said draft, it should be noted that all the requirements (on corporations, natch) are voluntary.
I wouldn't say that is so much as cognitive dissonance as a difference between private entities and the government. As far as the substance of the privacy bill of rights I am also skeptical how much teeth if any this will have.
Unless corporations actually run the DOJ and DOD, a fear some day they will, the government is in a very different position than the private corporations. Just to be clear I am not saying that the government should be able to do anything in the name of public safety but I don't see a disconnect between the applying a stricter standard with regard to privacy to corporations than to the government.
