Peter King on Rand Paul: He is making ‘the NSA the villain’ instead of ISIS

 I think it is a safe assumption to make that Rand Paul’s Constitutional stand against the NSA data-mining program has drawn the ire of selective Constitutionalist establishment Republicans and the latest example comes from New York Republican Peter King.

  Today on CNN’s Situation Room Peter King had this to say about the Senator from Kentucky:

“The NSA is essential. I’d rather have it continue as-is, but at least have it continue under the amended, — the revised form, that came out of the House. But it’s irresponsible and people like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who, again, somehow make the NSA the villain, when it’s Al Qaeda, it’s ISIS, it’s this whole array of Islamist terrorists we’re against, and somehow is consumed by the NSA. I’ve never met a more patriotic group of people than the men and women of the NSA. and I also believe full constitutional protections are in place right now. The House bill would even increase those protections and there’s no excuse for it to be allowed to lapse.”

    First I would like to know how Mr. King thinks there are Constitutional protections with the NSA data-mining program because it seems to me that warrantless bulk collections of American citizens phone records is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment but perhaps he has never read it. In case he has not read it here it is:

  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  That is pretty clear in my opinion: the person, place, and things to be seized need to be named in an individual warrant and only when there is probable cause so how then can a person have his or her phone records collected without any probable cause in a bulk warrant just in case he or she does something in the future? It is illegal and the courts have already ruled it so.

  We can chalk up Peter King as another person who believes Americans should give up a little essential liberty for perceived security (and perceived it is because the FBI has already admitted the program has not stopped any terrorist plots) and we know what Benjamin Franklin said about people who were willing to make that exchange.

  What Peter King should remember is that Rand Paul is not siding with ISIS over the NSA as he is framing the argument but rather is standing up for the Constitution which is under attack by the very people who have sworn to uphold the document. Perhaps it is time for Mr. King to start honoring his oath of office and until he does I consider him to be an enemy of the Constitution…

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium