Paul: Bulk data collection could lead to ‘systemic bias’

Presidential hopeful and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Monday defended his role in scuttling a Senate compromise on government surveillance reauthorizations, a move that could lead to the controversial intelligence programs expiring outright at the end of the month.

“I’m right in line with what the founders would have fought for and I am proud of the fight,” Paul said on CBS’s “This Morning.”

“The Constitution is inconvenient, but the thing is, we obey the Constitution because it protects the rights of all individuals.”

The Senate adjourned last weekend without a compromise on extending expiring portions of the Patriot Act. Paul led an effort to block a compromise bill, called the USA Freedom Act, as well as a number of short-term extensions of the program meant to carry the policies through a congressional recess. 

Paul bucked criticism from other lawmakers that his efforts are just for show or to help shore up fundraising for his presidential campaign. He noted that a recent Justice Department Office of the Inspector General report found, “the bulk collection of data hasn’t cracked one case.” 

While that report said the controversial Section 215 of the Patriot Act “did not identify any major case developments,” intelligence officials said it served other important purposes. 

He said his fear is that the government could use the power to pursue warrantless data collection against certain groups of citizens, noting that the government investigated people based on race during the civil rights movement.  

”You don’t ever want systemic bias to enter into government,” he said.

“If you give the government too much power, there’s always the danger of having systemic violence.”

Paul added that the Republican Party often focuses its attention on some parts of the Constitution and leaves others — specifically the Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable searches — without protection.

“I think sometimes my party gets all caught up on the Second Amendment, which is fine, but we don’t protect the Fourth Amendment enough.”