He won't (and I don't think he should) because he thinks it would be a bad idea from both a national security and a political standpoint.

This is about Rand Paul, using any available brick to throw at Obama, the idea being that as Obama's fortunes fall Paul's rise.

In short a version of grandstanding. Schumer of NY uses any opportunity he can in the same way for certain issues.

While all politicians do this some are more likely than others to seize the moment.

In other words something is in the news and then all the sudden Senator "x" is writing a letter or demanding some action which gets him publicity.

It would be interesting to see how many times a press release is issued by these types that is not about some issue that has bubbled up first in the media. (My point being that I'd like to see if I am correct...or not.)

I do know that politicians are quick to write letters about anything and everything. But certain issues that have more PR potential seem to be more equal than others. My observation.

Rand Paul's party is by far the biggest supporter of NSA, TSA, and other TLAs. If he really wanted to change things, he could start by convincing his own party to stop fellating the NSA.

While I'm not that well versed in American politics, I find that hard to believe. The President doesn't seem to be some sort of all-controlling, micromanaging dictator, I'd find it more believable that he doesn't directly control the majority of US institutions, especially since most of them operate regardless of the political party in charge.

I mean, the NSA has been operating for 60 years, so obviously there is some continuity, and their activities go beyond the whims of each individual president...

They do what he commands. If that's not the case, then the United States is under siege, and the government has suffered a coup.

Not every instance of dereliction of duty is a coup... but at the extreme, yeah.

"the buck stops here"

The NSA is under the DoD. So he needs to start by firing Chuck Hagel, then his Deputy, then General Alexander, et al.

That is going to do more damage than it helps. The NSA isn't black and white no matter how much people on HN have recently decided it to be so.

Law changes and reforms within the NSA are the only sane way to fix issues you don't like without doing more harm than good, and the President just doesn't unilaterally get to pass new laws on his whim.

I'm not arguing that Obama is good or shouldn't be blamed for NSA, I'm just saying that I believe had he not become president, it wouldn't have changed the NSA situation. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows, maybe a republican president right now would abolish the NSA, or maybe they would drop nukes all over Europe, I (and you) can't know exactly what would have happened. But if you disagree with my assumption that Obama losing wouldn't have lead to any different reaction to the NSA, then feel free to make that point. But apart from that, whether Obama is murdering kids with his bare hands or making the world an incredible place with his love, is irrelevant.

As to my own views, had I had US voting rights I would have voted for Obama, and by now would be (and am despite not voting) extremely upset by his actions in office. But I'm not sure my politics are relevant. My point was that I think that were the roles reversed, it would be a democrat wanting to fight the NSA, and a republican president keeping the status quo. And my point was that politicians on both sides consider both moral and political points before deciding to do something like this. I'd make that point whether I loved Rand Paul or hated him, whether I love the NSA or hate them.

It's not about Repulican or Democrat, both parties have many evil people in them. It's about the person. Just one simple example is that Obama voted for renewal of the Patriot Act. This alone should have been enough to not be surprised by this.

And yes, if Ron Paul had been elected, this would not have happened. 30 years of consistency.

If the NSA tried to stop the process and acted against the orders of the Commander-in-chief, Obama should then recall the US Military and destroy the NSA with brute force, treating it as a hostile domestic militia that is attempting a coup. Game over. Sound far fetched? No, it's just a standard issue government revolution, no different than what has gone on throughout history all across the map.

The Obama administration has decided to preserve a controversial arrangement under which a single military official is permitted to direct both the National Security Agency and the military’s cyberwarfare command despite an external review panel’s recommendation against doing so, according to U.S. officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/white-...