Did you know - Report: Rand Paul calls for scrutiny of Muslims

PO1 John Miller These politicians need to be careful in the backrooms and think before they talk. I get his meaning and you do too, but the public will perceive it in twenty different ways! I'm with CSM Michael J. Uhlig we need to stop talking about what we should be doing and doing it!

Hi the concept you just stated of ( No Big Deal ) is OK if your a saint or a card board cut out. Being a woman and sounding smart you need more data on the subject prior to stand point. I'm out the door now but i can get you some important info this afternoon. Your being spied on and you should not take that with a grain of salt.

I have the vehemently disagree. I agreed with Paul's stand on at least that issue. The "nothing to hide" argument is the camel's nose under the tent that leads to totalitarianism.

We have certain rights guaranteed to us as Americans (guaranteed, not granted. Everybody has them, but we acknowledge them). These include, among others not being subject to unreasonable search and seizure. "Unreasonable" has been, rightly in my opinion, interpreted as something along the lines of "absent specific suspicions based on evidence that would convince a reasonable person that a crime may have been committed." I was a little vague in how I defined it, because in certain instances I believe the current status is both too broad and too narrow.

By any reasonable reading of the the above, warrantless surveillance of the ENTIRE population, done in secret and without specific legal authorization for surveillance of any particular individual CANNOT be be "reasonable."

Further "picking up on key words" 1) means that they ARE listening in on private conversations or emails. That's where the words are.... An argument that "well, that's just the computers." fails. It just means that my first and fourth amendment rights are being violated more efficiently. 2) once the data is collected unaccountably, there is no reason to believe that it WON'T be used for other reasons. History show that that's not how it works.

By extension of you argument, as long as I am "not doing anything wrong", I should be fine the police having master keys to my house, car, and safety deposit box. If they walk up to me, I should be required to consent to a cavity search. If I object to any of the above, well its obvious that I have something to hide and am therefore a criminal/terrorist.

COL Vincent Stoneking - Colonel; I couldn't have summed up the underlying (and essential to American society as we think it should be) principles better myself, so I won't try.

Even though he didn't say it, the "quote" (since it isn't actually what was written) attributed to Benjamin Franklin"Those who would give up freedoms in return for safety will soon have neither freedoms nor safety." [and the nice thing about "quoting" a non-existent statement is that you don't have to worry about getting it correct - you just have to come close] is as appropriate as the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller that (according to popular legend [no one actually recorded what he said, {and even he couldn't remember it exactly - but he did agree that the "poem" accurately reflected the meaning of what he was saying then -}]) end with "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

I do not see it as "giving up my freedom" if it'll keep me and my loved ones and everyone else a little safer.

TSgt Kenneth Ellis - Sergeant; The term "due process" is a wonderful one as far as any government is concerned because what it actually means is "the process specified as applicable to a particular situation".

If "The Gumment" passed legislation making riding bicycles on sidewalks a felony offence with a maximum fine of $1,000,000 upon conviction but which also permitted pedestrians to shoot bicycle riders who rode on the sidewalk (and to do so without warning and even in the absence of any dangerous behaviour by the bicycle rider), then shooting a bicycle rider when they were riding on the sidewalk would have been giving the bicycle rider "due process".

Bryce Englin You could be right. Let's see how it play out over the next couple of days. It may become a talking point and it may be forgotten, but that's not good for Senator Paul. He needs to be in the publics eye for the right reasons. Let's see if this sparks some interest. I don't have a candidate picked yet, so I'm watching, listening, and reading about them all right now.

COL Mikel Burroughs sir I can agree with you on that, I'm looking forward to the first debate next month as in ready to see the Republicans fight it out. I give Rand Paul credit he's doing the right stuff and in the past he's earned praise from guys like Bill Maher on certain issues that could swing votes. I also believe the Democrats won't be able to count on votes from the many blocks they've counted on in the past, people seem to be waking up.