Clinton Still Backs Patriot Act

[portlander23]

Transcript:

COOPER: Governor Chafee, you and Hillary Clinton both voted for the Patriot Act which created the NSA surveillance program. You’ve emphasized civil liberties, privacy during your campaign. Aren’t these two things in conflict?

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you regret your vote on the Patriot Act?

CLINTON: No, I don’t. I think that it was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed. And it is true that it did require that there be a process. What happened, however, is that the Bush administration began to chip away at that process. And I began to speak out about their use of warrantless surveillance and the other behavior that they engaged in.

We always have to keep the balance of civil liberties, privacy and security. It’s not easy in a democracy, but we have to keep it in mind.

COOPER: Senator — Senator Sanders, you’re the only one on this stage who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001…

(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: It was 99 to one and I was maybe the one. I don’t know.

COOPER: … and the reauthorization votes. Let me ask you, if elected, would you shut down the NSA surveillance program?

SANDERS: I’m sorry?

COOPER: Would you shut down the NSA surveillance program?

SANDERS: Absolutely. Of course.

COOPER: You would, point blank.

SANDERS: Well, I would shut down — make — I’d shut down what exists right now is that virtually every telephone call in this country ends up in a file at the NSA. That is unacceptable to me. But it’s not just government surveillance. I think the government is involved in our e-mails; is involved in our websites. Corporate America is doing it as well.

If we are a free country, we have the right to be free. Yes, we have to defend ourselves against terrorism, but there are ways to do that without impinging on our constitutional rights and our privacy rights.

Clinton might be running for Bill Clinton's third term on domestic issues, but it looks like she's running for W's third term on militarism, foreign policy, and domestic spying.


Related:

Debate: Sanders Rejects Intervention While Clinton Slams Iran, Putin and Supports Syrian Rebels

Clinton: ... the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians

It’s something that might have been called neocon ... her supporters are not going to call it that

Robert Scheer: Go Ahead, Back Hillary Clinton and Forget All About Her Record

What Hillary Clinton wants you to forget: Her disastrous record as a war hawk

Clinton says U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran

[U of M Dem]

1. She just can't shake those neoliberal roots

despite allegedly being a progressive now.

*Cough cough -Bullshit- Cough Cough*

[TM99]

2. Hell the Patriot Act

shows us her neocon roots!

Of course she still backs it, and she won't do a damned thing if elected to reverse it or any of its damage.

But you know, internet polls are unscientific and the pundits have assured us that Clinton won the debate.

[U of M Dem]

3. Those silly "arguments" are originating from

a position of certain ignorance. No one can accurately interpret the intentions, ideas, or feelings of internet users and "know" what motivated debate viewers to click Bernie over HRC at a higher rate. It is unobservable.

All we can look at is the end result and the internet polls went consistently to Bernie by landslide numbers.

Those attempting to argue the "facts" of something inherently unknowable is a fool.

Speculation on internet polling in general is as far as these comments can go, albeit these are weak arguments. E.G. Hillary's numbers are low on the internet polls because her base hasn't participated in the polls yet due to a combination of age related computer illiteracy, early bed times, and having to think on it first.

I like to read comments such as those you referenced with an implicit "in my opinion" tacked on, of course, unless they show evidence or hard data. I this case evidence indicating hacking or manipulation of all of the polls occurred. That would be impressive but seriously unlikely.

[cprise]

4. It's neoliberal-turned-neocon

But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his “mainstream” view of American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.

“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/us/politics/historians-critique-of-obama-foreign-policy-is-brought-alive-by-events-in-iraq.html

Clinton proclaimed that she “too [is] deeply concerned about Iranian aggression and the need to confront it. It’s a ruthless, brutal regime that has the blood of Americans, many others and including its own people on its hands.” Even worse, she said, “Its political rallies resound with cries of ‘Death to America.’ Its leaders talk about wiping Israel off the face of the map, most recently just yesterday, and foment terror against it. There is absolutely no reason to trust Iran.” She repeated that claim several times for emphasis: “They vow to destroy Israel. And that’s worth saying again. They vow to destroy Israel.”

She vowed that in dealing with Iran, she will be tougher and more aggressive than Reagan was with the Soviet Union: “You remember President Reagan’s line about the Soviets: Trust but verify? My approach will be distrust and verify.” She also explicitly threatened Iran with war if they fail to comply: “I will not hesitate to take military action if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon, and I will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge.” She even depicted the Iran Deal as making a future war with Iran easier and more powerful:

Should it become necessary in the future having exhausted peaceful alternatives to turn to military force, we will have preserved and in some cases enhanced our capacity to act. And because we have proven our commitment to diplomacy first, the world will more likely join us.

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/09/hillary-clinton-goes-militaristic-hawkish-think-tank-gives-militaristic-hawkish-speech/

I thought so.