Poll Finds Mixed Support for Domestic Wiretaps 851
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."
Re:47%? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am actually suprised that only 47% are supporting it. With all the propaganda and "War on Terror" going on having 47% support is pretty damn good, not that I agree with it. It just shows how easily the big masses of people can be influenced by constant "War on Terror" propaganda.
So.. let's get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a very encouraging sign.
What would the numbers have been if the poll was worded this way:
Are you for or against wiretapping suspected terrorists without a FISA court warrant, even though a warrant can be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact?
I'm guessing that 47% would grow to at least 2/3.
The American people are starting to "get it" about this current President. The terrorists would be winning if the public was falling for our fascist government's bullshit ... but the people are, surprisingly, showing that they aren't all willing to part with their cherished civil liberties just because Dubya & Dick flash the boogie-man before our faces every 14 months or so (or whenever they need a poll boost).
The public is starting to build up immunities to the old "whip them into a frenzy by showing stock footage of Osama and playing an audiotape" routine.
Good for us.
All depends on how the question is worded... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, famous conservative activist Grover Norquist says that if new tools are needed to go after terrorists, the President should get a law passed, rather than break the existing laws. Sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it?
So, let the public relations rumble begin!!!
Mixed-Up Poll Support (Score:1, Interesting)
7% margin "to reduce the threat of terrorism", -4% margin just on the wiretapping. That hefty 11% (which is 24% of either "side") is why Bush will lie about the wiretaps "reducing terrorism".
How about the results of a poll asking "support Bush's illegal spying on Americans?" I'd expect more like up to 35% approval (20% of Americans believe we were born yesterday), 60% disapproval. But I'd still expect the media to describe that opposition as "mixed support".
Re:47%? (Score:1, Interesting)
Why not? The previous president did, and his approval ratings were something like 127%.
And before anybody repeats the mantra of "it was just about sex (which he didn't have)", please read "how Clinton's support for sexual harassment law and the independent counsel statute came back to haunt him. [reason.com]"
Unlike the Bush administration, which is arguing that the AUMF supercedes FISA, and makes the current wiretaps legal (I don't agree), nobody in the Clinton administration ever argued that perjury -- even in a sexual harrasment law suit -- was legal. Only that we should ignore the law in his case.
Also, whatever else one may think of the two bastards, Bush is (probably) breaking the law for the common good to win a war (which is still breaking the law and still wrong). Clinton broke the law merely for his own personal gain, to benefit only himself.
There is no difference between the two major political parties. They're both as stupid, greedy, and evil as the Republicans.
Re:47%? (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgive me if I take anything George W. Bush says these days with a big grain of salt.
The president may say that "it is within the law." That doesn't mean that before they got caught, it was within the law.
To quote that great sage Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of "is" is.
For instance, I can't count how many times I heard Bush say "the U.S. does not torture."
That may be true at this very moment, now that the Abu Ghraib photos have been released. But that doesn't mean that the U.S. wasn't routinely torturing people earlier. Bush is a politician who, like all good politicians, uses his words carefully.
Re:47%? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't mean to poke fun, because there are serious defenders of the current administration who are coming very close to advancing this exact argument. But you know who the last guy to say this [landmarkcases.org] was, right?
Re:Death of a democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
That is unless you need to be discredited to the public in some way. Then those very interesting things that you do at home that have been monitored suddenly become very interesting and very public.
Re:More Obfustication (Score:3, Interesting)
Please site your sources for:
A) proof that they are listening to only incoming calls.
B) proof that they are listening to only suspected terrorists.
and no.. because Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity said so.. is not good enough.
You see... we would HAVE this proof, if the President wasn't bypassing FISA review. If all the calls were of the nature you describe, then the President should have no qualms with getting FISA warrants up to 72 hours after the fact since the warrants would be granted in every case if the calls are of the nature you describe .
The only possible reason I can think of for the President to bypass FISA is because the calls were NOT just "incoming calls from Al Qaeda".
Re:47%? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hypothetically, I'm suspected of committing some crime. The local police get a warrant and tap my phone. After they do that, I call you and talk to you about seeing a movie or something. Have your rights been violated because the police listened in on your conversation?
It's a similar circumstance here, except that the originator of the call is outside the country and is a suspected enemy of the country, therefore is not entitled to the same rights you and I are. So when Ali calls you from Medina to talk about Saudi Arabia's chances in the World Cup (I'm assuming you're a soccer fan), there's a chance (if he's running with the wrong crowd) that the NSA is going to listen to your conversation. Your rights have not been violated any more than in the above example, because it was not your phone that was tapped. Savvy?
Re:47%? (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite your "Freak" status in my window ;) I also whole heartedly agree with you and find your comment to be quite insightful.
(Tentative friendship begins?)
I'd never heard that Franklin quote, but it certainly seems to me that a lot of what he said did indeed hint at what he feared to be the temporary nature of what he had just help craft - or to serve as a warning against what he feared would contribute to the demise of the Republic.
It's just one of those things - power corrupts, and those with power desire more. With people becoming nonchalant towards and lethargic about these government grabs for more power, the fire which held light to things like the Revolutionary War, Vietnam War protests, etc. is all but snuffed out.
It's one of those things that I feel somewhat powerless against. I can write my congressmen and local leaders again and again, and show up to the voting booths with conscience in hand and well being of the country and constitution in mind, and despite my best personal efforts, not a whole lot changes.
Re:Death of a democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
and I would think twice about flatly saying that it's falsified... There is in fact an article out there which alleges that Bush said that very phrase. Whether it's ultimately true or not only those who were in the room with Bush and Bush himself know.
What I do know.. is that according to my own personal assesment of Bush's personality.. It would come as no great shock to me at all if it proved true.
The sad part is that it seems WELL within the realm of possibility that it could be true.
Yes, he could. (Score:4, Interesting)
It is easy to "justify" that action, or any action.
Obviously the president would be better able to focus on terrorist threats if he didn't have to focus on petty political maneuvers.
Therefore, spying on anyone who opposes his political agenda is actually helping the president prevent terrorist attacks by freeing up his time to focus on that.
There is an old line about "the ends do not justify the means".
Once you start using the "goal" to justify the tactics, then ANYTHING can be "justified".
So you don't approve of "X". Do you want the terrorists to win?
Re:Death of a democracy (Score:2, Interesting)
A police state is a state where the executive branch makes the laws, and enforces the laws (like they should), and judges guilt or innocence.
We've already had them claiming they can lock people up without going through the courts.
Now we have them arguing they do not have to follow the law. Today it's FISA they don't have to follow, tomorrow it's the law against murder. Summary executions, anyone?
If the executive do not have to demonstrate things to the court, and cannot be held in check by the legislative branch, that IS a police state, period. There's no 'maybe', there's no 'slippery slope', it is here and now. It is a state run by the police. It is a police state. That's what that means. It doesn't have to be a dictatorship, it doesn't have to be fascist, it just has to be operated solely by the executive branch of the government, with no checks for anywhere else.
And, no, the fact their power might be checked by the courts WRT to the detentions, and by Congress with impeachment, doesn't change the fact that, if what the Administration claims is true, this is ipso facto a police state.
If what they claim is not true, they are felons at the least. Pick one. Police state, or a government operated by criminals.
Re:Why Would He Dodge The Court? (Score:1, Interesting)
> 2) He thinks he's above the law of the land and doesnt need to follow the constitution.
3) He's actually targeting the bad guys - but the tools he's using are designed to intercept everyone's transmissions. FISA requires that you know who you're targeting before you tap, and would deny requests that, even if you know who you're targeting, would involve the slurping down of several (hundred?) million innocent citizens' phone calls. (FISA's rationale for denying the request is essentially your reason #1 - even FISA judges won't authorize anything that could be used as a fishing expedition.)
Since the existence of those tools is classified, you can't ask Congress to change the law. To do so would confirm their existence.
Since you can't get authorization from a FISA court, you can't ask it for permission either. To do so would be pointless.
Classic Catch-22.
Re:47%? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have little doubt they would decry the living document theory. The founders put in place a mechanism, e.g. the amendment process to allow the constitution to change as needed. That is the ONLY part which makes it a living document. They would not IMO support reinterpreting amendments due to the changing nature of the times. Doing so makes a mockery of the consitution.
Example the second amendment. If you read the federalist [constitution.org] papers and other documents it is clear that the intent was to protect the citizens right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Not hunting, defense against tyranny. To interpret it any other way is disingenuous.(search for "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall" in the link above to see what I mean.)
If however any citizen believes that this is no longer necessary, they have the option of working to amend the constitution to change it. Why is this not done? Because its alot easier to say oh its a "living document" that we can reinterpret rather than amending it. It is law for the lazy, power hungry, and inept.
Re:47%? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try again.
Re:Why Would He Dodge The Court? (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as someone who has read the Constitution (Score:2, Interesting)
The Constitution does not establish who has the authority to issue warrants, but that has traditionally been vested in the courts. I don't think you'll see that presumption overturned any time soon; doing so would invalidate every federal search warrant ever issued.
A little common sense tells us that Congress cannot effectively establish a court without defining that court's purpose and jurisdiction. Since one legitimate purpose of a court is to issue warrants, FISA is an appropriate exercise of Congressional power. FISA does not restrict executive powers; in fact, it is an enabler of an executive power. In order for the executive to exercise its power of "search and seizure" while meeting the Constitutional requirement of obtaining a warrant, a court must exist (be established by Congress) with the authority to issue the warrant.
Q.E.D.
The power in question is the war-making power, which the constitution grants to the executive branch.
Although "war-making power" is not relevant to this case, you won't find these powers vested in the executive branch:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
etc. You are probably thinking instead of this clause:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
but that clause makes no mention of "war-making".