07-07-2015, 11:27 AM
The Patriot Act & the 2016 Presidential Race
![[Image: paul-vs-christie.png]](http://theiowarepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/paul-vs-christie.png)
Both Rand Paul (^left) and Chris Christie (^right) are using the Patriot Act as a key platform issue.
Paul (Republican Senator, Kentucky) wants it repealed (ref post 178 upthread). Christie (Republican Governor, NJ) wants it preserved.
The provision of the Patriot Act which allowed the NSA to monitor US citizens' phone records was allowed to expire recently, with 2016 GOP candidate Rand Paul leading the efforts to do away with it all together.
A few days later, a bill was passed allowing the data to continue being collected, but remanded back to the phone companies. If the NSA wants to view it, they need a warrant (they need to establish probable cause before a judge).
While Congress was debating how to move forward legislatively, Christie attacked Paul and other lawmakers in support of revisions and said the future of the law was being decided by 'people who have no experience dealing with what I've dealt with.'
'I'm the only person in this national conversation at the moment who has used the Patriot Act, signed off on it, and convicted terrorists because of it,' Christie said before announcing his formal candidacy.
Christie said 'these same folks who are criticizing this now will be the same people who will stand on Capitol Hill if there is another attack of America and interrogate a CIA director, an FBI director, and ask them why they didn't connect the dots and not realize the hypocrisy of their actions.'
'The first job of the President of the United States is to protect the homeland, and that's what we need to do,' Christie told attendees of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
I'd like to hear what all of the other candidates have to say about the Patriot Act's future. It's a divisive issue alright. No one wants the govt spying, by law, on its own people. But, no one wants innocent civilians being blown to bits either, which it's feared, by some, could be the result if the NSA's domestic terrorism surveillance reach is too narrowed.
Both Rand Paul (^left) and Chris Christie (^right) are using the Patriot Act as a key platform issue.
Paul (Republican Senator, Kentucky) wants it repealed (ref post 178 upthread). Christie (Republican Governor, NJ) wants it preserved.
The provision of the Patriot Act which allowed the NSA to monitor US citizens' phone records was allowed to expire recently, with 2016 GOP candidate Rand Paul leading the efforts to do away with it all together.
A few days later, a bill was passed allowing the data to continue being collected, but remanded back to the phone companies. If the NSA wants to view it, they need a warrant (they need to establish probable cause before a judge).
While Congress was debating how to move forward legislatively, Christie attacked Paul and other lawmakers in support of revisions and said the future of the law was being decided by 'people who have no experience dealing with what I've dealt with.'
'I'm the only person in this national conversation at the moment who has used the Patriot Act, signed off on it, and convicted terrorists because of it,' Christie said before announcing his formal candidacy.
Christie said 'these same folks who are criticizing this now will be the same people who will stand on Capitol Hill if there is another attack of America and interrogate a CIA director, an FBI director, and ask them why they didn't connect the dots and not realize the hypocrisy of their actions.'
'The first job of the President of the United States is to protect the homeland, and that's what we need to do,' Christie told attendees of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
I'd like to hear what all of the other candidates have to say about the Patriot Act's future. It's a divisive issue alright. No one wants the govt spying, by law, on its own people. But, no one wants innocent civilians being blown to bits either, which it's feared, by some, could be the result if the NSA's domestic terrorism surveillance reach is too narrowed.