Poll Finds Mixed Support for Domestic Wiretaps

aspenbordr writes "The NYTimes reports that Americans are growing more and more concerned about the tradeoff between 'fighting terrorism' and civil liberties. Forty-seven percent of those polled responded they they did not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'." From the article: "Mr. Bush, at a White House press conference yesterday, twice used the phrase 'terrorist surveillance program' to describe an operation in which the administration has eavesdropped on telephone calls and other communications like e-mail that it says could involve operatives of Al Qaeda overseas talking to Americans. Critics say the administration could conduct such surveillance while still getting prior court approval, as spelled out in a 1978 law intended to guard against governmental abuses."

Goering

[StressGuy]

Supposedly, he made this quote while being intervied by a psychiatrist during the time of his war crimes trial:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."... ... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Court approval is the issue

[Tsar]

Forty-seven percent of those polled responded they they did not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'.

Plain wrong. The article states, "Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants 'in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.'"

You may disagree in either case, but at least get the basic facts right.

What a difference a few words makes...

[TCQuad]

From the supplement:

After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying this was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of this?

53% approve, 46% disapprove, 1% no opinion

After 9/11, George W. Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of this?

46% approve, 50% disapprove, 3% no opinion.

Basically, somewhere around half the country approve, half disapprove and the margin of error are people who are swayed by how the question is asked.

Actually, their stated goals are . . .

[PIPBoy3000]

Al-Qaeda's [wikipedia.org] goals are to drive out Western influence from the middle east, Saudia Arabia in particular, and establish a pan-Islamic state. I suspect they don't care much about our civil liberties one way or another. That's up to us.

Re:The question was loaded (mod parent up.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's not really asking people about the situation at hand... My take on a summary, the Bush administration...:

1. Has a spy progam targeting...
2. US Citizens...
3. Without a warrant or court order...
4. Where existing law passed by congress prohibits doing so...
5. (Bonus) When a perfectly legal, fast, reliable way to do it with warrants exists (FISA)...
6. (Bonus) And Saying it's within your powers to utterly ignore US law becuase of "war powers" in a conflict which is technically not a war and is almost by definition unwinnable. (War on Terror. Terror's pretty hard to kill.) And where Congress has specifically rejected amendments to the Patriot act which would be steps in this direction.

All this about "Would you want to use wiretaps against (suspected) terrorists or let them win" is a continuation of the BS false-choice (and mischaracterizing the opposition's argument) often given by the Bush administration.

Back in 2002 when the project was already started, the Department of Justice said that FISA was perfectly fine and there was no reason to weaken it even for non-citizens! But now that they've been found out they change their tune...

(Stupid inactive blog of mine) [blogspot.com]

Essential Liberty

[jcbarlow]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin

What part of that don't people get?

Re:Please stop...

[scheming daemons]

This "Bush is violating my civil rights" nonsense is getting pretty damn old. Any lib would be very hard pressed to name a single "civil right" that they have lost since Bush was elected. You can still have any religion you want, you can still say anything you want, you can own a gun, you don't have to testify against yourself, you can own land, you can vote for whoever you like, you can hang out with whoever you like, you can talk crap about the govt everyday...and you can do all this without fear of retaliation from the govt.

So please, stop promoting the left wing dogma that your rights are somehow being violated...unless you have some kind of proof that specifally YOUR rights have been violated.

I can be arrested and detained without cause, indefinitely, if the government decides to label me a "terrorist".

Due process is gone.... if the government decides that by posting this message, I am indeed a "terrorist", I can be locked up... without due process, without being allowed to contact my lawyer, without access to my family, and without the ability to post bail... indefinitely.

There's one civil right gone. 5th Amendment... blown to bits.

How about this one: My phone can be tapped, without probably cause, simply because the other end of the phone call is overseas (or not, we don't know for sure since Bush/NSA isn't letting the FISA court see what calls they're tapping). 4th Amendment.. ripped to shreds.

Quit drinking the Limbaugh koolaid. If this was happening under a Democrat President, you and your buddies in the Michigan militia would be storming Washington. You got impeachment proceedings started for far less.

Non-transparent regimes

[FungiFromYuggoth]

It's an open question as to whether any purely domestic conversations have been tapped; the administration has claimed not, but there have been leaks to the opposite. There are also serious questions as to whether results from the warrantless wiretaps were used to seek later FISA warrants without informing the judges - causing one FISA judge to resign in protest. The program also seems to have changed at least once based on questions about its legality, so that even if warrants are sought for domestic wiretaps now it doesn't mean this was the case throughout the program. IMO, only an independent investigation by someone with a very high security clearance can sort it out for certain.

Given that this administration seems to be treating vegans as terrorists [11alive.com] and this warrantless wiretap program may have been the mother of all dead ends [nytimes.com], skepticism is warranted. There are reasons why one branch of government isn't allowed to go off wandering on its own.

Re:47%?

[SilverspurG]

I'm reading through the Constitution and, you know, I just can't find anyplace where it delegates to the President the authority to authorize any sort of secret (or public) informal investigation of the personal activities of a US citizen. As per the 9th and 10th Amendments, he's currently breaking his oath to uphold the Constitution.

Not that it matters. SCOTUS has castrated the 9th and 10th Amendments for decades. In all reality we should just rewrite this nation as an elected (ha!) monarchy with a token parliament to lend legitimacy to what is obviously illegal action.

"Mr. Bush"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

It's not a political attack on Bush; the NYT follows the standard of calling politicians "Mr." (or, I assume, "Miss" or "Mrs." or "Ms.") most of the time unless there's some specific reason to identify them by title. Many other, mostly British, papers do the same -- "Mr. Blair," etc. As for "President," there are other stylistic schools which hold that former Presidents never lose the title; thus you'll see not only "President Clinton" but also "President [George H.W.] Bush," "President Carter," "President Ford," etc. Find a particular mainstream news source which routinely talks about both "Mr. Bush" and "President Clinton," and you'll have an argument. Otherwise your post is just more standard-issue right-wing whining.

Blame Congress for lacking nads

[HangingChad]

Let's be clear about something, we are not technically at war with anyone. Did Congress declare war and just forget to tell the rest of us? Oh, the use of force authorization. Was that a declaration of war? Didn't sound like it. And it was focused on Iraq. Where's the declaration of war on terror?

So Bush is claiming wartime powers but Congress has not officially declared war. The war on terrorism is a symantic construct like the war on drugs, which has been going on my whole life. So how do we know when we won? How do we know the war is over and we can return to a normal level of intrusiveness?

If Congress doesn't see the fight against terrorism as real war, what is the Bush administration using as justification? We're selling out the qualities that made America a great nation and we're not even clear about the goal. What happens when we're still giving away our liberty but the threat of terrorism is no longer relevant? The government will still be using that excuse 20 years from now. Who do you trust to tell us when the terrorists are beaten down to the point they're no longer a significant threat?

You trust Rumsfeld? A study commissioned by the Army says the Army is near the breaking point and Rumsfeld says everything is fine. One of them's lying. You trust Bush to tell you?

Part of the problem is Congress spends most of its time fighting for home district earmarks instead of dealing with the big issues. So instead of declaring war they pass some pussy authorization for the use of force in Iraq that basically turns their decision making authority over to the president with the hope he'll do the right thing. What bullshit.

And why are conservatives suddenly so gray on matters of law? When Clinton was president you were all pretty black and white about what was legal. But when Bush breaks the law by deciding the FISA court really isn't necessary, all of sudden you're pretty waffly on the whole subject of obeying the law. Fucking hypocrits.

Re:got the karma to burn, so....

[Big_Al_B]

So...what exactly is wrong with the current law, FISA?

Is the capability to instantly begin tapping with 72 hours to get a retroactive judicially-reviewed warrant--from a rubberstamp court no less--an insuffient solution for addressing terrorist threats?

If so, then wouldn't it be better for the executive branch to request some changes to that law than to disregard it?

I mean, shouldn't the folks who are chartered to *enforce* laws also *obey* laws? Or do the ends always justify the means?

Re:47%?

[gfxguy]

From the FISA web page [emphasis mine]: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States [b]on behalf of a foreign power.[/b]"

It seems to me that FISA is a method by which FOREIGN countries can spy on U.S. citizens. That's not what happened.

And you're wrong - I do NOT like president Bush, I think there's a lot of VALID things to complain about, but instead of just jumping on a partisan side of an issue, I look at what we know and make my own decisions. There were a lot of things about Clinton that I liked, and there were a lot I didn't. I didn't like Bush Sr. at all. So don't pigeon hole me.

Re:47%?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Nope, you still have each and every right outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's just that the governement is going to listen to the call if they have probable cause to think you might be a terrorist.

See, that's the controversy - the government needs a warrant, not probable cause and they aren't getting them. It's not that they're being denied, they just can't be bothered.

Re:47%?

[TomRitchford]

The President can ignore any law passed by Congress any time he choses. Congress has no authority over the exercise of executive power. Period. You may have learned about this concept in high-school civics class. It's usually refered to as "seperation of powers".

Let's forget that you are totally factually wrong here (try looking here [wikipedia.org] for a discussion of this) -- are you really saying that the President can break any law he pleases at a whim? If the President decided to kill someone who pissed him off that there's nothing can be done? If the President decided to herd all the Democrats into ovens, Congress has no authority over his "exercise of executive power"? Is this what you want?

Why do you hate the Constitution so much?

Re:47%?

[tweedledopey]

Wow. That's truly f'in brilliant. He can't ignore a law, no matter who passed it. The murder analogy above works well. His executive powers are for enforcing the laws of the land, whether they be delegated to him by Congress or the Constitution. Those powers not delegated to him are not expressly given to him. The President can't say "oh I don't like habeus corpus" and suspend it just because there's a war on (just ask Lincoln). Or well, at least he couldn't until we all became whimpering babies. Read your intro US Government book again, and this time take notes.

Re:47%?

[TomRitchford]

Is commiting murder part of the President's executive authority? No. Can he order executions without alleging a violation of a law passed by Congress, and without the order of a court? Yes.

I am astonished. You do believe, then, that the President could simply round up the Democrats and execute them at his pleasure! I don't see how the right to impeach trumps that.... the moment someone brought up impeachment, he'd be dragged out and shot and his body dumped on the ever-growing pile.

Can you show me where in the Constitution or in the body of law that interprets the Constitution this "right to break the law" exists?

The fact that you seem to think this is a good idea makes me think you're a troll.

There's a reason for the Bill of Rights

[rpbird]

Instead of talking about international communications, terrorism, and legalities, let's talk about a neighborhood. There are lots of people doing lots of things in the neighborhood: going to work, raising families, minding their own business. Something bad happens in the neighborhood. A crack house is established and gangsters have a shootout, killing several innocent people. The good people of the neighborhood, with the cops, close down the crack house. But there's a chance the gangsters might come back; the neighborhood and the cops set up a watch program to keep an eye on the vacant crack house and known gangsters. It works, but the fear of their return has not gone away. One old man, obsessed with keeping the neighborhood safe, keeps a telescope focused on the crack house. When he reports suspicious characters around the crack house, no one minds. He's keeping them safe. One day he realizes he might not be catching all the suspected gangsters at the crack house, he starts writing down the tag numbers on all cars who drive by the crack house. The crack house used to be the justification for reporting people to the police. Not anymore. He starts keeping track of the cars and people on the same block as the crack house. Then a two block area around the crack house. Then a four block area around the crack house. The old man eventually has information on every resident of the neighborhood. The local police are flooded with meaningless information. Not one person in the neighborhood can set foot outside without being reported by the old man. They live in fear of him. Instead of freeing the neighborhood from fear, a new fear is introduced to replace the old one: fear of the old man.

That's why we have a Bill of Rights, something the head of the NSA, judging from his comments at a news conference recently, has never read. Give it a read, why don't you?

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, ADOPTED 1791

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:47%?

[TomRitchford]

Here's article II, section 2 [cornell.edu], which explicitly spells out the President's powers. Please direct me to anywhere in Article II that says that the President can break any law he feels like. Do remember: we are not at war; and even if we were, the President's discretionary powers last for days after the outbreak of war, not years.

Hamdi [cornell.edu] cannot possibly be read to indicate that the President has carte blanche to break laws at will. This is about holding Americans who have taken up arms against this country in the service of foreign power.

Is this what you want? A dictatorship? Because that's exactly what you are talking about. And I'm not using that word lightly.

Re:More Obfustication

[e40]

God, you are an ass.

If what you say is true, WHY DOESN'T THE AG PROVE IT? Because... HE CAN'T. He and the president fear that trying to get approval after the fact will fail, and thus expose them to ridicule, lawsuits, etc, etc, etc.

You need to do some reading!

[TXG1112]

US Constitution

Article II, Section 3 [usconstitution.net]

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Are you suggesting that the President is exempt from the laws that he is required to take care be faithfully executed? That interpretation makes no sense.