Rand Paul Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Obama Administration over Phone Metadata Collection Program

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has been talking about a class action lawsuit against the NSA and the Obama administration over the spy agency's collection of phone metadata and other collection activities.

The lawsuit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with Rand Paul and conservative group Freedom Works named as lead plaintiffs. The lawsuit is aimed at President Barack Obama, Director of National Security James Clapper, Director of the NSA Keith Alexander, and Director of the FBI James Comey Jr.

In it lawyers for the plaintiffs ask for an immediate injunction against the Mass Associational Tracking Program on the grounds that it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, order plaintiffs to purge all data it has in its possession gathered through MATP, certify the lawsuit as a class, give plaintiffs' legal team security clearances to conduct an adequate discovery, award plaintiff legal and other fees associated to the case, and provide any monetary relief the court deems appropriate.

Senator Paul told reporters he was filing the lawsuit as an American citizen, and not as a sitting U.S. Senator at a press conference held outside the courthouse today. The lawsuit calls for an end to the government's "mass, suspicionless, non-particularized collection, storage, retention and search of telephone metadata," which the government says it has the authority to do under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

You can check out the full court filing here.

Source: Mashable

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Talk about "questionable sources."  Every link in that post links to another post on its own site, and none of them are cited whatsoever.

    The link I posted WAS cited, and corrected.

  2. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    For one President, you found one thing he didn't know about.  This President has said "I didn't know it was happening" no less than twelve times, on no less than twelve different matters.  ONE OF THEM WAS A CONFIRMED LIE.

    Also, to respond to your IRS claim, they investigated some liberal organizations, yes.  Those investigations were all wrapped up within six months.  They investigated six TIMES that number of conservative groups, starting four years ago, and most of those investigations are still ongoing!

  3. 0
    black manta says:

    You know, when Iran-Contra happened, Reagan claimed also he didn't know either that it was going on under his watch.  Seemed good enough for everyone then, and he was never impeached.  Why isn't it good enough for Obama?  Seems the door swings both ways here.

    But, as with Benghazi, Fast & Furious, and everything else, there's really no "there" there.

    As far as Benghazi goes, didn't know the Middle East was a volatile place, or that they expected the President to be aware of every little security detail?  In fact, the Obama administration asked to have security beefed up at those embassies years ago.  And it was struck down by the Republicans who didn't think it was worthwhile to invest the money to do so.  That the President should be knowledgeable about every possible security detail also is unrealistic.

    And as far as the IRS "scandal" goes, they investigated Liberal groups as much as they did Conservative groups.  Oh, but you conveniently want to ignore that little detail, don't you?

    You're getting you info from questionable sources, and more than likely cherry-picking them.  But I've learned like Bill Maher said that when arguing with Conservatives, nothing gets past "The Bubble."

  4. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    None of them have been "debunked."  


    ABC News posted the timeline of the Benghazi talking points changes:


    A German newspaper brought evidence that Obama was briefed on NSA spying in 2010:


    Forbes shows us that Fast and Furious not only happened EXACTLY how we were told – that the Justice Department paid people to illegally purchase firearms, and then illegally sold them to Mexican drug cartels – but that Eric Holder himself LIED TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT:


    To quote that article:

    "Tragically, two of the weapons linked to Fast and Furious were recovered from the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2011 where he had been shot by illegal immigrants who were smuggling drugs. Two other of those weapons were found at the scene of the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico on February 15, 2011. Three more turned up at a violent crime location in Mexico where a local police chief and his bodyguard were killed by cartel members."

    Seven weapons OUR GOVERNMENT ILLEGALLY BOUGHT AND SOLD were used to kill law enforcement officers, two of them US Federal agents.

    And you are obviously okay with this.

  5. 0
    black manta says:

    Paul's beating the same anti-Obama drum that every other Republican and Libertarian have been doing now.  A lot of those claims can and have been debunked.  And I'm working on fact-checking them now for you.

  6. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    If I were a CEO of a company and i found out that one of my department heads was lying to me about the work his department was doing, I would fire him ten ways from Sunday. The fact that Obama has not fired Clapper or any other known lying idiot in the administration is a pretty bad indictment of Obama's leadership.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  7. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Nobody's saying the President needs to know exactly what's going on every day of the week.  However, the President DID know about this for three years before the story broke, and chose to do nothing to stop it.

    Also, the President supposedly didn't know about Benghazi, the Benghazi talking points, Fast and Furious, the IRS vacations scandals, the IRS targeting political groups that just happened to be against the President's policies, Syrian rebels being funded by al-Queda, or that the Muslim Brotherhood killed a bunch of Christians before he gave his seal of approval of them taking over the Middle East.  Are you going to argue that he should not be held responsible for the misdeeds of his Administration SOLELY because he claims he doesn't know what they're doing?  Do you find it acceptable that the President claims he doesn't know what's going on EVERY SINGLE TIME his Administration is implicated in a very serious misdeed?

  8. 0
    black manta says:

    Just because the President is the boss of all those agencies doesn't mean he knows about everything that they do.  To use a quote from Independence Day: "Two words, Mr. President: plausible deniability."

    It's quite reasonable to assume Obama didn't know exactly what the NSA was up to or what exactly the programs did.  Clapper and Alexander seem to be the kind of people who are canny and sneaky enough to be able to tell the President what he wants to hear so they can make what they're doing sound like it's on the up and up, so then he can turn around and say with a straight face that it's all legal simply because that's what he was told by them.  Obama's a very smart man, but I imagine he's not really that tech-savvy when it comes to how these programs operate.  So I think it's unfair to pin this all on him.

  9. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    The President is the boss of the NSA, the DHS, the FBI, the CIA, the EPA, the IRS and all other administrative agencies created by Congress. Anything they do is supposed to be overseen by the President. If they step outside their legally assigned roles and duties, the President is supposed to stop that. If they are not doing something they should be doing, the President is supposed to make sure they get busy.

    The President is not supposed to be some figure head. He is supposed to be the CEO of the country making sure that the laws Congress passes are followed.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  10. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You act as though anything President Obama has done has actually had a positive effect on the country, and that Paul has no reason whatsoever to oppose him.

    Hell, you're outright ignoring the fact that Obama knew about this for years before the story broke, and let it continue.

  11. 0
    black manta says:

    I'd be more okay with this if A) This wasn't Rand Paul doing this and B) This wasn't part of his greater agenda for a Presidential run.

    Paul has been doing everything he can lately to try and discredit and undermine Obama.  And this comes right on the heels of his digging-up the whole Lewinsky scandal again.  The fact that he's directly targeting Obama on this belies whatever his good intentions were, and shows this as just a political ploy.

  12. 0
    GrimCW says:

    Ahh didn't know that it was under clinton they started. Doesn't surprise me though. Clinton was the real mastermind behind the recession Bush was also blamed for (he did make it worse, but it wasn't his easy credit crap that made people allowed to take loans they couldn't pay off), and now Obama is.. I'll never understand how people can be so ignorant as to think the when the SHORT TERM fixes of one president fail under the next, its the new presidents fault they failed… despite the obvious signs that they were going too anyways.

    I'd just read that the NSA used the patriot act as a guise to front these illegal shenanigans

  13. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Actually, no – no bill was signed that started this.  NSA's bulk collection was started under Executive Order under Clinton.  Yes, the Patriot Act made it a bit easier, but the program was already well underway for years before Bush took office.

    The difference here is that, according to NSA documents leaked by Snowden, President Obama was briefed on the NSA's activities three years before the story broke, and then lied about it to the American people.

  14. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Many of the same people claimed that no terror attacks happened while Bush was in office.

    Some of them are stuck in this weird time warp where none of this happened until Obama's butt hit the seat.

  15. 0
    Sora-Chan says:

    I was actually thinking to myself "Why don't they try suing the people who were in the Bush Administration, since they're the ones who opened the floodgates"

    So far all I see the Obama Administration being at fault was for not closing said floodgates. To use the floodgate analogy… It's like someone at a dam opened up the floodgates and then left to go home, leaving it for the person just coming onto duty to deal with it.

    I also question how much Obama's own administration's knowledge of what was going on. As we've seen from reports and what not, the NSA has enough funds to last it years, even if it was defunded. They could very well have been doing stuff behind everyone's back, since they didn't need to ask for funding and end up with a watchful eye over them. There's also the possibility they were also omitting information from their supposed higher-ups.

    It is possible that they did know I suppose. But from what I've been seeing for quite some time, is that the Presidential seat doesn't really have that much power beyond morale/rallying the troops. It's more of a figure head position for people to point at when blame needs to be dished out, and to get people to get in motion.

    ╔╦═╣Signature Statement╠═╦╗

    If you don't like something I said in a post, don't just hit the dislike, let me know your thoughts! I'm interested in knowing everyone's opinions, even when they don't mesh with my own.

    Night Theme for GP: https://userstyles.org/styles/119449/

  16. 0
    GrimCW says:

    Wait.. wasn't it the repubs that signed in the bill that made this all possible in the first place? That thing they call a "patriot" act?

    IIRC that was the bill that opened the doors for what was going on, despite it supposedly only passed because it was snuck in at the end of a session and no one even bothered to fully debate it, then once its info was passed around, also never bothered to get rid of its allowed spying on non-threats without evidence.

Leave a Reply