http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm -- December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely. Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
When was the question ever about not being allow to intercept the messages? The question was all about getting a court warrant. What kind of deceptive poll is this?
Popping the Wrong Question We may be hearing more about a Rasmussen poll showing that "ixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States." Prominent warblogger Instapundit as well as the first of what undoubtedly will be several minor wing-nut sites are already trumpeting this as showing that the public supports what Bush has done and the Democrats are barking up the wrong tree. Notice anything missing from the question? How about the part that the wiretapping is done without a warrant, although there is a court set up to consider the evidence and issue just such warrants. There is no doubt that the FISA Court would issue a warrant to listen to calls between "terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States." All the government needs is some articulable basis for the suspicion. Apparently that is what it did not have. If the polling question asked was "do you think that the government should be able to listen secretly to any international phone calls to the United States that it wants to on the approval of a shift supervisor at the National Security Agency without a warrant or any court or legislative supervision whatsoever," the numbers would be very different. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-kaus/popping-the-wrong-questio_b_12982.html
the key words here are "between terrorism suspects." of course a lot more people will agree with that, i sure as hell would. but the problem lies in what a "terrorism suspect" is, or at least what the governments' definition is. is that anybody with direct ties to terrorism orgs.? indirect? all muslims? protesters? serriously. this just opens up a big can of worms and leaves itself for a lot of abuse.
One thing to keep in mind, unlike Gallop or Zogby, Rasmussen uses automated computers to conduct its poll which brings heavy criticism from a lot of statisticians. I'd like to know how the questions were phrased as well as what the error rate was due to interface questions before I make a judgment either way...
That should be a concern for Republicans. Only 64% of Americans believe something that is totally legal should be legal. Add in without court order or any type of approval, and that number will go down substantially. Add in that Congress has not authorized such a thing, and that most Consistititional scholars believe it is illegal, and that number will drop further. The question asked in the poll had nothing to do with the current wiretap controversy and nevertheless, less than 2/3rds of Americans think something that has been fully accepted as normal should be legal.
there's an interesting tid-bit. perhaps telling on why there's not a greater outrage except from those with a vested interest (libertarians, academics, journalists, etc).
Check my signature for three pages on this, including Jorge's best performance ever. Missed you in that thread, basso.
HO HO HO! This topic has really caught the liberals with their pants down. After the Rasmussen Poll came out, the liberals have *completely* shifted their argument. Completely. What started out as an outrage over spying has morphed into an outrage over a legal technicality after these polls came out. It's hilarious. What makes their front for an argument fraudulent is that the legal technicality they are so desperate to see (allegedly) is 1) A rubber stamp process where virtually no warrants are denied (4 in 25 years) 2) A process which is already being done in domestic cases. This argument is yet another example of liberals manufacturing a fake scandal and using it as proof as to why the Bush Administration is out for evil. It's a total joke, which is only trumped by some of the more extreme liberals claims (or hopes?) of Osama winning the war. Proof? Why sure! HO HO HO! Tis the season for a liberal OWNING. If you go to the Pentagon Spying Thread http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=105922 you will find that the source of outrage isn't the warrants, but rather the process of spying. A process that we now know is overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Let's take a walk down memory lane and examine the posts: The NYT said they are doing it domestically *with* warrants. Remember that in domestic cases, this is true. It further exposes the liberals as being frauds. bnb Civil liberties have taken a back seat to fear since 2001. Pirc1 I am sure it would be a great society if everyone is monitored by TV camera 24 hours a day and everything is recorded so every crime could be traced back. That would be a country everyone would love to live in. glynch This is worse than Watergate. When Nixon was caught spying on domestic enemies who opposed the Vietnam War, he and the GOP was embarassed , now they are what is the deal;he is the President? KingCheetah If we are ever able to see the complete detail of individuals that were illegally spied on - I would not be surprised to see several political enemies on that list. rhadamanthus "I pledge allegiance to the republicans, and the united police state they have created. One nation, under surveillance, with wire taps and torture for all." rhester ....my point is government surveillance belongs in communist countries not Constitutional Republics where there are safeguarded individual freedoms. Only two liberal posters, FranchiseBlade and vwiggin, made reference to a warrant in their arguments, and they were being disingenuous because they were referring to domestic cases – a situation where warrants are being issued already. So there you have it. What was once an 'outrage' over spying has turned into a misguided quest to rebuke the warrant process after the Rasmussen polls shifted their approach! Since warrants are being issued in domestic cases, according to the NYT (their favorite source), I guess they are striking out on all counts!
The Constitution grants President Bush, as Commander in Chief, the right to spy on al Qaeda. The public overwhelmingly support it. Where does that leave the liberals? Pulling their pants up.
this isn't the issue, as much as you would like to confuse it, the issue is spying on US CITIZENS without warrants when we have laws that clearly define that as illegal
Bootlickers have no real reason to fear anything like this. They have supreme confidence in their tongues and their stomachs. One can only derive this sort of confidence from proof in practice.
Are you talking about the post I made in this thread? Did you read the Washington Post article I linked to? It states: The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information. Still, Bush and his advisers have said they need to operate outside the FISA system in order to move quickly against suspected terrorists. Since you didn't reply to me there, let me respost my response here: Somewhere out there, Benjamin Franklin is vomiting in his grave. If it is so easy to get a warrant, why should the government ignore even this very basic procedure? Could it be that the NSA is doing stuff that is so overbroad that it won't even pass the rubber stamping scrutiny of the FISA court? Unless you believe FISA itself is infiltrated with terrorist spies, there is really no reason for the government to bypass this already weak safeguard. So basically, the government can now conduct spying on anyone without giving a reason for it. Before you call me a liberal nut, I will grant you this: I do not believe Bush is Hitler and I think he genuinely believes he is doing what is best for the country. However, Bush is not personally involved in every case of spying. While he has good intentions, who knows what his underlings will do? After FEMA-gate, Rove-gate, and torturegate, I'm having seriously doubts about the kind of people working for our president. And what assurances do we have that this domestic spying appratus will be removed once Bush leaves office? Bush is not a facist, but he sure is creating a good foundation for a facist regime.
But the problem with your argument is that the New York Times says, in their piece that was withheld for a year waiting for the Patriot Act debate to crank up, that warrants *are* being issued for domestic cases. That nullifies your argument.
You won't find one serious news account of this story that does not include the lack of warrants or court orders, because that is and always has been the entirety of the story. In the first days of this scandal, GOP lackeys kept saying our government's always spied on its own citizens when it had security reasons to do so -- yes, but with court orders. The lack of them is what is new and that is why people are rightly warning this is a step toward 1984 style facism. Jorge accused me of shifting gears from being anti-spying to being anti-spying without warrants in this amazing thread, a quick read of which will show it was about warrants from the beginning: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=106530&page=1&pp=30 It's the same thread where he said warrants would blow the government's cover because when we served them to terror suspects they would change tactics!!! You gotta read that thread. Pure gold. It's also the same thread where this exchange regarding the Rasmussen poll took place: Of course, the question wasn't asked. Once Jorge finally understood that point, he went on to tell us that warrants issued by a secret court would compromise secrecy (duh, that's why the court is secret) and expedience (he never did have an answer for the 72 hour grace period). Somewhere in there he said that "stealth" was the key and that serving warrants would blow the operation. Later he said he didn't say it and it was ridiculous to imply that. Later someone posted his two hilariously contradictory quotes together and he accused the liberals of ganging up on him. Finally, after saying warrants were too much trouble, Jorge decided they were actually too EASY to obtain. I'm serious. This thread is the greatest. Go read it. Here's another link: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=106530&page=1
