Back to Flake...(I am not clarifying for you, but for the thread as a whole)
On NDAA: He did not vote for the NDAA 2012. He did vote for NDAA 2013, but also voted for the Gohmert Amendment which "clarifies that the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) do not deny the writ of habeas corpus or deny any Constitutional rights for persons detained in the United States under the AUMF who are entitled to such rights.". So the 2013 bill does not allow for American citizens to be arrested and thrown in a prison camp with no due process whatsoever.
On the Patriot Act: Yes he voted for it in 2001. Every Republican did with the exception of Ron Paul, Bob Ney and Butch Otter (neither Ney or Otter are currently in the House). But in 2005, Flake chaired the Patriot Act Reform Caucus. The other members of this caucus included Tom Udall, Bernie Sanders, Jerrold Nadler, and (wait for it) Ron Paul. Hardly a neo-con think tank with that group. Two Republicans are on a caucus to address the Patriot Act - Ron Paul and Jeff Flake. In 2005 Flake proposed four amendments to the Patriot Act. "Two of his amendments were signed into law and they subjected any National Security Letter and its gag order to a judicial challenge by the recipient, and narrowed the scope of "Sneak and Peek" warrants to have definite time limits on their duration and extensions before they need to notify the target of the investigation" (wikipedia). Flake voted for the 2005 Patriot Act bill. Coincidentally so did Bob Ney. Perhaps both felth the amendments added to the bill addressed an of the specific issues they felt needed to be reformed. I don't know, you'd have to ask them. Of course Bob Ney is in jail, but I digress.
I think sometimes, we get caught up in the spin & rhetoric that comes from our side. People automatically think NDAA is bad. I saw someone (I think in here) state that we shouldn't even have an NDAA bill. Obviously they had no idea that we have one every year because it is the defense budget. Sure the 2012 bill was bad, and Flake & Paul voted against it, among others. The 2013 Bill (which still has yet to be voted in the Senate) was improved, and had the "habeus corpus" provisions in there that were necessary. What would be telling is if the final conference report removes that language would Flake vote for the conference report? And regarding the Patriot Act, while I think we need to get rid of the whole thing, there are many intelligent reasoned people that think some of the arguments that our side makes (ie. Americans are going to be spied on, they are looking at your library cards, etc) are baseless. Here is what Flake had to say about the Patriot Act in 2005:
"Some of the most contentious fights in Congress come when the federal government must balance two responsibilities that can conflict each other, such as preserving civil liberties and effectively fighting domestic terrorism. The process that has created this bill exemplifies the way Congress ought to work. Debate was thorough and the process was fair, and I believe that it has created a bill that makes the country safer while protecting civil liberties.”
So while some might disagree with his vote, I believe that he has demonstrated a concern for civil liberties based on his words and actions. Is he perfect? No. Is he the next libertarian hero? No. But when you look at the entirety of his career, and the particular concern he has had concerning both the NDAA and the Patriot Act. I think that he will be a fine addition to the Senate and will without a doubt in my mind be an asset for the Liberty Movement as a whole.
