[_delirium]

> All R's voted wrong except Cruz, Lee, Heller, Paul, and Murkowski.

The roll-call vote I'm looking at [1] only has Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski voting to move the bill to a vote on passage; Paul supported the filibuster.

[1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

[nostromo]

Paul ended his support because the bill also renews the Patriot ACT until 2017.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244

He's actually been very consistent in opposing Patriot ACT renewals, and I applaud him for it.

[waterlesscloud]

So some Patriot Act provisions expire in 2015. That could make for some interesting politicking.

[phaus]

Not sure how one can be pro mass surveillance and anti-patriot act at the same time. Fuck that guy.

[adventured]

Because Paul isn't pro mass surveillance.

[phaus]

What is his justification for voting against? Unless his argument was that the bill is inadequate, I can't really see a good reason.

[ekianjo]

Do you bother reading previous answers before you comment ? He is opposing it because it renews the Patriot Act, which is a higher order Evil compared to the NSA-related measures.

> “In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Americans were eager to catch and punish the terrorists who attacked us. I, like most Americans, demanded justice. But one common misconception is that the Patriot Act applies only to foreigners—when in reality, the Patriot Act was instituted precisely to widen the surveillance laws to include U.S. citizens,” Sen. Paul said, “As Benjamin Franklin put it, ‘those who trade their liberty for security may wind up with neither.’ Today’s vote to oppose further consideration of the Patriot Act extension proves that we are one step closer to restoring civil liberties in America.”

[dang]

> Do you bother reading

Please don't make political arguments into personal quarrels on HN, even when someone doesn't bother reading. Political arguments are abrasive to begin with. Let's not add gratuitous abrasiveness.

This comment would be quite a good one without the first sentence.

[knubie]

Did you even read the article?

> Some of its opponents, like Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, believe it went too far in curbing the N.S.A. Others, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, thought it did not go far enough.