[lettergram]

"“This is the worst possible time to be tying our hands behind our backs,” Mr. McConnell said before the vote, expressing the concerns of those who argued that the program was a vital tool in the fight against terrorism."

When would be a good time? Seriously, I hate these arguments, because there is no reasoning with them. Sure, these various programs may have helped stop terrorism, or at least have the potential to.

However, so would killing anyone (citizen or not) who has any potential threat. I would argue the later is even more effective, and uses the same chain of reasoning.

Why then, can we not move past that and try to stand a bit more on law (being the constitution in this case), if not reason. Clearly, these programs are disliked by a large number (if not the majority) of the constituents these senators represent. Then, why are they not voting on their behalf?

That seems like a far better question.

[deciplex]

Notice that the article only inferred that McConnell was referring to terrorism specifically. Perhaps they anticipate domestic unrest (due to, among other things, egregious NSA spying, ironically), and don't want to tie their hands behind their backs in the fight against that. In which case, a good time to do it, is whenever they decide to stop the spying and the impoverishment to destitution of literally everyone save for the rounding error of a demographic that constitutes the ruling and elite classes, et cetera. So, never.