Peter King Hates Your Civil Liberties; Flips Out About His Own Party Rejecting Unconstitutional Spying On Americans

from the is-this-guy-for-real? dept

Mon, Jan 27th 2014 1:48pm — Mike Masnick

If you asked Hollywood to come up with an extreme caricature of a crazed hawkish anti-civil liberties politician with a tenuous grasp on the facts, I don't think even they would come up with someone quite as crazy as Rep. Peter King. Rep. King sees terrorist threats absolutely everywhere -- so long as he believes they're coming from brown people. When it comes to IRA terrorists, he's a big supporter. But the brown kind? Well, to him, they require Americans to give up all civil liberties -- and dare any politicians point to the 4th Amendment? Well, apparently they're unfit for office.

So you have to imagine the sort of brain explosion he must have gone through on Friday, when his own damn party declared the NSA's activities unconstitutional, and demanded that they be stopped -- once again highlighting that King and his colleague Rep. Mike Rogers are on the fringe of the Republican Party: extremists who don't give a shit about the rights of Americans.

And, indeed, upon finding out that his own party actually respects the rights of Americans, King threw a verbal shit-fit, claiming that such respect for the American public is the equivalent of "signing our own death warrant as a party."

“We’re going to make the Democrats and Barack Obama the party of national security,” he said. “It’s signing our own death warrant as a party.”

That seems... unlikely on multiple levels of course. Study after study after study has shown that a very large percentage of the public is quite concerned about NSA overreach. They're less and less concerned about terrorist attacks, since about all that seems to keep happening is the FBI foiling its own plots. Similarly, while a growing number of liberals are supportive of the government wiping out civil liberties, that seems to be solely because "their guy" is in charge.

I'm honestly baffled as to King's play here. It's long been rumored that he's going to run for President in 2016. Does he honestly think that "fear the brown people" campaign is going to attract very many votes? What happened last week shows, again, that King is a fringe nutball, even within his own party.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: civil liberties, nsa, peter king, republicans, rnc, surveillance

71 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 12:04pm

Man...
I hope that a lot of people who supported Ron Paul in the past are at the GOP primaries if King tries a run.

Hopefully he gets booed on every answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 1:53pm
  
  Re: Man...
  We can only wish...
  
  Follow the money, the remaining 70% are just sheep. Why do you think incumbents are difficult to toss onto the street?
  
  Based on the performance of our government in general for the past 10 years would should have cleaned house on both parties every damn election.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Man...
    That's a very dangerous idea, because that's what we have done every other election, and look what it's gotten us.
    
    Bush Sr. broke his infamous "read my lips" promise about raising taxes, and the backlash got us the anti-Bush, Bill Clinton. We have his administration to think for NAFTA, the DMCA, and... oh yeah, a boorish President with no self-control whose term was so plagued with scandals that the voters picked the opposite extreme: the guy from the other party who ran on a platform of "restoring dignity to the White House."
    
    And we all know how that turned out: destroying both our nation's credibility and its finances over the course of two terms, not to mention setting up nearly all of the abusive government practices (such as all this NSA crap) that the current administration is getting blamed for.
    
    And by 2008, we were all so sick of Bush Jr. that we voted in Barack Obama by a landslide, and it's difficult to say which of the two has done more damage to our country. I'm just worried that things are going to continue as they have, and then in 2016 we get the Republican candidate, not on his own merits but mainly due to backlash against the abuses of the Obama administration, who then turns out to be even worse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Man...
      We still have these jackwagons in Congress though. =/
      
      Anyway, I won't say that Obama started the NSA problems, cuz, as you pointed out, Bush had it going really good by the time he left office.
      
      Obama, on the other hand, has had 6 years now, to fix the problem and hasn't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Man...
      "And by 2008, we were all so sick of Bush Jr. that we voted in Barack Obama by a landslide, and it's difficult to say which of the two has done more damage to our country."
      
      Obama has done far more damage than Bush. His 2008 election literally dissolved the anti-war, anti-police-state opposition movement that had reached a full head after 8 years of Bush. Obama has proven himself to be even more corrupt, oppressive, and militaristic than Bush, while
      successfully pretending to be the opposite.
      
      ‎
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jackn, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        "Obama has done far more damage than Bush. His 2008 election literally dissolved the anti-war, anti-police-state opposition movement that had reached a full head after 8 years of Bush. Obama has proven himself to be even more corrupt, oppressive, and militaristic than Bush, while successfully pretending to be the opposite."
        
        Dude, thats rich. How do you sleep at night?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        I voted for Obama. I rarely vote Republican. It's true. Obama has expanded most of the bad Bush policies.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 9:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        They misunderestimated me.
        Is our children learning?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Man...
      yes, and Clinton was the ONLY one to get you idiots out of the massive debt you were in, until Bush 2 got in who quickly fucked it up again.
      
      it is not hard to guess this web site is heavily republican leaning, ALMOST all Americans hate the rep's now days, but they still have TD backing them !!! (that will help)..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mason Wheeler (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        Clinton didn't "get us out of the massive debt;" not even close. What he did was pass a "balanced" budget that theoretically got us out of our massive deficit, (which would still not do much in the way of paying down the massive debt,) but that was just on paper, backed by a bunch of really questionable accounting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        pixelpusher220 (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        You do realize that if we'd simply left the Clinton tax rates in place the 'debt', not the deficit would have been paid off by now right?
        
        Obviously deciding to fight a massive world wide war plus the costs of data centers in Utah and everywhere else the NSA lives would impact that some. However, it's a far cry from CUTTING taxes while at the same time massively increasing spending which is exactly what Bush Jr. did. Fiscal conservative my ass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 6:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        Actually, only one President has ever paid off the National Debt (Andrew Jackson), and it only lasted one year.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Pragmatic, 28 Jan 2014 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        As it happens, Mike Masnick takes a non-partisan line, though he does appear to be somewhat libertarian-leaning.
        
        So what is the evidence you have to support the alleged rep-leaning?
        
        That many of the commenters here are somewhat conservative is merely a reflection of our center-right society. And "Center right" does not describe the GOP at the moment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Benjamin C. Wade (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 5:43pm
      
      Boorish? Are you nuts?! Clinton was the best president we ever had.
      Bar none.
      
      We'll never know if Obama could have been a good president (He's only fair in my estimation, which has gone downhill since the NSA stuff) But again, we'll never know because from the start the racist republicans were intent on nothing else except blocking his every move.
      
      Clinton was allowed to be great, and he was. Oh Yeah! He got a blow-j*b. Big F'ing deal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 6:09am
        
        Re: Boorish? Are you nuts?! Clinton was the best president we ever had.
        Actually, I thought Bill wasn't that great. Sure, the economy in SOME areas of the country flourished, but all I saw growing up was economic depressions, closing schools, shrinking towns, etc.
        
        If you lived on the West Coast or the Northeast during the 90s, the economy was great! Midwest or South or the mountains between the Midwest and West Coast? Yeah, your economy wasn't doing very good.
        
        In fact, other than television, which was pretty good in the 90s, the saying around here is "the 90s sucked, good TV, but nothing else".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - silverscarcat (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 6:12am
        
        Re: Boorish? Are you nuts?! Clinton was the best president we ever had.
        In fact, I'll point out that it was Clinton who repealed Glass-Steagle. Sure, he could have vetoed it and it would have passed anyway, but he signed the law that repealed Glass-Steagle, which is why the economy collapsed like it did.
        
        Bush could have done something about it, but he didn't, so he has to take the blame for allowing the economy to get out of control.
        
        But Clinton was the reason it started.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 8:06am
        
        Re: Boorish? Are you nuts?! Clinton was the best president we ever had.
        I don't think Clinton was great. He was a mixed bag at best. he was, however, the best Republican president in my lifetime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Just Sayin', 28 Jan 2014 @ 1:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Man...
      " mainly due to backlash against the abuses of the Obama administration, who then turns out to be even worse."
      
      Have you considered that perhaps the real issue here isn't each step being worse, and rather the hyperbole raise by websites like this one making it appear worse?
      
      30 years ago, Peter King would have probably not even merited a mention on the bottom of page 62 in your local paper, his arm waving and silly comments perhaps at best being the source material for a Johnny Carson monologue.
      
      Today, we have instant everything, and pundits with no other qualification than the ability to type making their every step look worse and worse. We have Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, MSNBC, and thousands of online bloggers telling us what to think and making all sorts of wild claims about how horrible the actions or words of different people are. Chicken Littles, all of them.
      
      The reality is this: Obama is no worse than those before them. He got handed a shit sandwich of an economy on day 1 of his first term, and it will likely take until the end of the first term of the next President to HOPE to turn it around. Bush jr was handed a shit sandwich of a political situation by both Clinton and Bush sr, who alternately coddled, abused, fed, and armed the middle east. Clinton let us all ride the wave and get rich dot com style, and his biggest sin was abusing a cigar. Bush sr was a victim of Ronald Reagan, and was smart enough to realize that the voodoo economics of Reagan would have bankrupted the country before the end of his term.
      
      You have to keep going backwards all the way to Tricky Dicky to find a guy who really, really screwed the pooch, and well and truly broke the law.
      
      Don't let the hype of modern pundits and communication to cloud your judgement. We are all a little older, we (as a person and as a world) are not quite as innocent, and we continue to stride forward at an incredible speed. All the whining and complaining adds up to nothing but noise, don't let it get you down.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 3:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Man...
      That's a very dangerous idea, because that's what we have done every other election, and look what it's gotten us.
      
      Unfortunately just about every system of government produces this slide effect.
      
      The Roman system of the emperor choosing his successor sometimes worked (produced the five good emperors in the 2nd century) but earlier you had Julius Caesar - who chose someone a little bit worse than himself (Augustus) who chose someone a little bit worse (Tiberius) who chose someone a little bit worse (well quite a bit worse Caligula).
      
      Any system will be as bad as the people who operate it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MissAnthropy, 28 Jan 2014 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Man...
      Why, gee whiz, it's almost as if the whole thing is a rigged game where the two parties give each other political cover every few election cycles, all in service to their common agenda of intertwining the State with a handful of mega-corporations at the expense of the individual citizen.
      
      Nawwww!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re: Man...
  Should have been ron debating obama not mitt
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:11pm
    
    Re: Re: Man...
    Yeah, let's put a libertarian nutcase who thinks that even more deregulation would be a good cure for the problems brought about by excessive deregulation in a position where he has a legitimate chance at the White House. Awesome idea there.
    
    That's exactly the sort of nightmare scenario I'm worried might happen in the next election, TBH. The Republicans will come up with something even worse than we've already got, and we'll put him in power on pure force of backlash.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Man...
      Kind of sad that he was more electable than Mitt could have ever hoped to be.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mason Wheeler (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 4:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        Depends on the year. I honestly think that the most influential person in the 2008 race was Mike Huckabee.
        
        No, really. Hear me out. Think back to the primaries in 2008. On the Democrat side, they were trying to choose between two nightmare scenarios: more of The Clintons, or some guy with next to zero actual political experience. We all know how that turned out. But the really interesting race was the Republican primary.
        
        As in 2012, Mitt Romney emerged as a clear front-runner pretty early on. But then, out of nowhere, Mike Huckabee shows up and starts campaigning on a kamikaze platform of far-right Bible thumping and religious bigotry. Anyone who took even the briefest look at his campaign knew it was doomed to failure from the start, but it did accomplish one thing: by blatantly playing on religious bigotry and casting himself as "more Christian than that Mormon candidate over there" right in time for crucial primary votes in highly religious states, he managed to weaken Romney's primary bid just enough for John McCain to take the nomination.
        
        McCain was running on his credentials as a veteran, and his strengths were in foreign policy, especially the ongoing wars. But we all remember what happened between the end of the primaries and Election Day: the housing crash abruptly changed Mom & Pop America's highest-priority issue from the wars to the economy, which neither candidate was particularly strong on. So Obama won by default, being the "backlash against the current, unpopular president" candidate.
        
        But the economy was Mitt Romney's strongest issue. He had spent his entire business career as essentially a turnaround artist, reforming failing businesses and making them profitable. If it hadn't been for Mike Huckabee, he would have won the nomination, proceeded to mop the floor with 2008 Obama in debates, and quite possibly won the Presidency. (2012 Obama, with 4 years of experience in this economy under his belt and a campaign that hadn't already spent a lot of resources defeating Hillary Clinton in the primaries, was a completely different matter.)
        
        It all depends on the year.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 9:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Man...
        Huckabee?
        
        hahahaha
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 1:54pm

let's all show him what we think of him and get him removed from office! that sounds like a plan!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re:
  Im not sure, but i think your a genius
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 1:56pm

It's long been rumored that he's going to run for President in 2016.

That's a joke. He's the Kucinich of the right. If the R's have any sense at all, they'll put a sombrero on the elephant and run Rubio�.. who will get crushed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:04pm

Similarly, while a growing number of liberals are supportive of the government wiping out civil liberties, that seems to be solely because "their guy" is in charge.

That's not really true. I voted for the President a couple of times, but I am just as outraged as everyone else by these revelations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AricTheRed (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:04pm

I found a typo in the story
"And, indeed, upon finding out that his own party actually respects the rights of Americans, King threw a verbal shit-fit, claiming that... "

should read...

"And, indeed, upon finding out that his own party suddenly, and surprisingly claims to "respect" the rights of Americans..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:08pm

i see
so am i the only one that thinks king is possessed by the ghost of j edgar hoover? who now instead of seeing communist everywhere sees terrorist everywhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Riccardo Cabeza, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:10pm

King wants a more aggressive perspective on defense issues? How? Raise the flag on an American military base in the West Bank? Help Israel ethnically cleanse Gaza? Can the NSA get any pervyier or creepy? Or does Peter King just want to euthanize all brown people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 28 Jan 2014 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  He's probably the one behind the "2 Billion Muslims Are Planning To Destroy Us!" trope.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:11pm

If he keeps going he is gonna end up like that guy in Scanners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re:
  I'm done, I just want it to.stop
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:11pm

Peter King's "nutball" attitude makes perfect strategic sense, assuming his aim is to get funding from the cash-rich military-security-industrial complex -- and then, upon his 'retirement' get a lucrative lobbying/consulting job.

All the companies doing military and 'security' contracts with the government (a multi-billion-dollar industry) must adore this guy, and that more than makes up for all the voters he pisses off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:13pm

He's not that bad.... Terrible stuff happened in NYC. He has every right to be concerned.

He has to stand up for the people most directly affected by terrorism. I just don't like extrajudicial punishment. They INVENT dangers to protect us from... but there are real damgers too. You can have a robust security program without violating human/civil rights. Just stop torturing and leaking...

Also, too much outsourcing will just let incomptemt underlings exploit the system by getting you to declare war on yourself.... God Bless America and the Bush years. If you respect rights, then these embarrassing problems disappear because we meant to go after foreign crazy people, not the crazy people running the country. (I didn't mean congressman, but how does this stuff happen?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:35pm
  
  Re:
  Not that bad??? You can't be serious!
  
  We are all aware of the terrible things that happened in NYC. I think I saw it in the news once or twice. And he certainly has a right to be concerned.
  
  But what he's advocating does exactly nothing to stand up for New Yorkers. His stance and policies put them at more risk, not less. It just changes the direction the risk is coming from.
  
  And not just New Yorkers, but everybody. If someone is advocating a policy that will affect the whole nation, it's a bad thing to frame it as something special to New York.
  
  You can have a robust security program without violating human/civil rights.
  
  Then he should be advocating that, not that human & civil rights should be done away with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 5:48am
  
  Re:
  You can have a robust security program without violating human/civil rights.
  
  Then scale the security down and focus on attacking the cause of so much hatred against the US that actually converts into real criminal attacks against the country. Nothing justifies violating human rights. Nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MissAnthropy, 28 Jan 2014 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  We had all this bullsh*t domestic spying in effect prior to 9/11, and it didn't prevent that. We had even more domestic spying (from the stuff enacted in the post-9/11 security orgy) and it didn't prevent the Tsarnaev brothers from attacking the Boston Marathon.
  
  Peter King is just a fascist who believes nothing is outside the purview of the almighty State. His party affiliation is pretty much meaningless, because the Democrats are full of fascists too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:16pm

He is scared..
He knows the NSA has pictures of his Judy Garland "collection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Thacker, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:21pm

There is no way he can possibly gain any traction with a Presidential run. The IRA thing along kills him. Also note that he was one of the few Republicans to angrily object to the sequester and to the shutdown too, mostly because it threatened his precious military spending.

He's a representative of the extreme pro-military wing of the Republican Party, but there's no way he could win a nomination because he upsets the rest of the party coalition too much. His pro-spending, pro-tax sympathies won't win him primary votes either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:23pm
  
  Re:
  The question is, if he's so extreme, how the HELL did he get elected in New York?
  
  After all, New York doesn't want the extreme right wings in the state.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "The question is, if he's so extreme, how the HELL did he get elected in New York?"
    
    Compromised elections officials? All that domestic snooping might come in handy when it comes time to sway a few elections here and there.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - blueskies, 28 Jan 2014 @ 3:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm missing a sad but possible button here...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy2020 (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    New York is more than 'New York City'. He is the congressman for the 2nd district.
    
    New York's Second District covers portions of Nassau and Suffolk Counties and includes the Townships of Hempstead, Oyster Bay, Babylon and Islip.
    
    http://peteking.house.gov/about/our-district
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:52pm
  
  Re:
  you do understand the IRA renounced terrorism years and years ago, and the IRA and the US Declaration and independence and the Constitution is very closely aligned with the situation that gave rise to the IRA.
  
  You bare arms because of "England invading" and declare your right to defend and attack, just like the IRA..
  
  But America being so very insular, its a wonder you have even heard of the IRA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mason Wheeler (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Please. The IRA renounced terrorism after 9/11 made their strongest financial backers uncomfortable with supporting terrorists, and the American revolutionaries in Colonial times didn't go around bombing civilian targets such as shopping centers.
    
    Let's keep the historical revisionism to a minimum, shall we?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 1:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      For once I can agree with you.
      
      The IRA murdered children and women, bombed Armistice celebrations (i.e. veteran celebrations), and public transport hubs. That's when they weren't knee-capping, gun-running, and hob-nobbing with Libyan terrorists. Didn't you guys have a bit of a beef with Libya back then?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:57pm
  
  Re:
  Also John, saying "The IRA thing alone kills him", is the same as saying today,
  
  Today that is the same as saying "The Muslim thing kills him",
  
  So if you speak positively about a group that has renounced terrorism, some IRA member where terrorists, some Muslims are terrorists, but saying "the IRA thing" or "the Muslim thing", does not hurt you politically, (to anyone with any brains that is).
  
  Unless you have some other political agenda to push, which clearly this place has.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 7:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Also John, saying "The IRA thing alone kills him", is the same as saying today,
    
    Today that is the same as saying "The Muslim thing kills him", "
    
    Um, no. It would be more like saying "the Al-Qaeda thing kills him" if he had been a big Al-Qaeda supporter.
    
    Not all Irish are IRA terrorists any more than all Muslims are Al-Qaeda terrorists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 28 Jan 2014 @ 1:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not that "all Irish are terrorists", although that is pretty much equivalent to what a lot of people say involving Muslims. However, the IRA was definitely a terrorist organisation (as were many of the 'Loyalist' groups), and for such a prominent supporter of them to be whining on about 'terrorism' fears is rather hypocritical.
      
      Where was Rep. King when the IRA were firing mortars at Downing Street, and trying to blow up Ronnie Raygun's soulmate, Maggie Thatcher?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AricTheRed (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:27pm

Re "Anonymous Coward"
"He's not that bad.... Terrible stuff happened in NYC. He has every right to be concerned.

He has to stand up for the people most directly affected by terrorism. I just don't like extrajudicial punishment. They INVENT dangers to protect us from... but there are real damgers too. You can have a robust security program without violating human/civil rights. Just stop torturing and leaking..."

Clapper, Alexander, Feinstein whoever you are, nice try with the more moderate tone!

Go back to Ft Meade and find me my password to my old hotmail account instead of defending the other traitors involved with protecting the NSA. Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: Re "Anonymous Coward"
  NSA not traitors... Just a hulking bearuacracy
  
  bz/sn
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Re "Anonymous Coward"
    You either care more about upholding the Constitution than keeping your cushy government job, or you're a traitor to this nation and everything it stands for and deserve to be hanged for treason.
    
    There's no middle ground, no gray area. Every single person that stands by the NSA, who advocates throwing the public under a bus and taking away their freedoms in the name of "security", is a modern-day Benedict Arnold.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Re "Anonymous Coward"
      There is SO much disinfo....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 5:57pm
    
    Re: Re: Re "Anonymous Coward"
    Definitely traitors. I don't know how ANYONE in good conscience can work at the N.S.A.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2014 @ 5:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Re "Anonymous Coward"
      Uugghh I think MAYBE more oversight is necessary. I didn't call anyone a traitor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:42pm

King is on the permanent intelligence committee. Since the resolves included holding the politicians responsible for the breaches of civil liberties, he is very likely to be included in the republicans getting sacrificed given how extreme his public comments have been.

Furthermore, if the republicans actually hold on to their resolves, it is almost certain to cut their ties to King, which would isolate him completely given how anti-democratic his opinions have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:45pm

Oh Peter...
Does that leather shoe really taste that good? You can't just STFU for once even when your entire party practically screams at you that it is in you best interest to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:59pm
  
  Re: Oh Peter...
  I though you upheld the peoples right to say how they feel?
  
  something about free speech anyway, not sure, possibly somewhere up the back..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2014 @ 5:30am
    
    Re: Re: Oh Peter...
    I said nothing about restricting his right to speak.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 2:51pm

Why do I get the impression, that some party *cough* NSA *cough* has some very dirty laundry with which they blackmail him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 4:00pm
  
  Re:
  that would be because you are naturally paranoid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 3:36pm

"�We�re going to make the Democrats and Barack Obama the party of national security,� he said. �It�s signing our own death warrant as a party.� "

yes, and of course they did not already sign their own death warrant with their stupid antics with Obamacare and the Government shutdown!!!

and basically being partisan and damn stupid.. wankers is a term commonly used for those types. You do know they are more unpopular today than they have EVER been before in US history, but I am sure they are not happy where they are, they want to be even more unpopular..

The non-ruling opposition party does not get to say what is and what is not constitutional. And who on earth is stupid enough to agree with (or support) the Republicans ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gyffes, 27 Jan 2014 @ 4:04pm

Wow...
Peter King's such a f*cking asshat, he almost makes OOTB look normal.

Almost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jan 2014 @ 4:07pm

gotta love the R's
all those financial kickbacks and Rolex watches, holidays and designer clothes, could it be the R's trying to deflect focus on their core activities ? (lining their pockets).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@b, 27 Jan 2014 @ 6:30pm

>>Does he honestly think that "fear the brown people" campaign is going to attract very many votes?

Worked fine for Australia's current Prime Minister, elected last year. His platform? "Stop the boat-people". Check your prejudice at the border, 100% of our "white" voting population are immigrants or descents thereof.

>>What happened last week shows, again, that King is a fringe nutball, even within his own party.

Therein lies the difference. Our leader doesn't so much lead, as his followers follow. They'll gave truth to his lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NoahVail (profile), 27 Jan 2014 @ 10:27pm

The Dark Side of the Force
Regarding surveillance and terror threats, Pres Obama and Rep King are on the same page.
The difference between these men is the rhetoric they choose, to achieve their common goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jan 2014 @ 7:05am

This is what you have to do when the NSA has a file on you and leads you around on a leash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. Peter King, 28 Jan 2014 @ 8:39am

ALL YOU TECHDIRT USERS ARE TERRORISTS FOR NOT AGREEING THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS! IMA GET THE NSA TO HACK YOUR SITE AND ARREST EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER BEEN HERE!

God I love that name field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]