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."
47%? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:47%? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shudder.
Ya know, I guess this is why this country was set up as a Republic to begin with, because as I get older, its becoming readily apparent that the people don't always know what's best for them. Marketing of this "War on Terror" is done so well that people are readily willing to hand over their freedoms for an obviously flawed perception of additional security. Those who rally against this government abuse and overreaching Big Brother attitude are labeled as unpatriotic.
Shudder.
Re:47%? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shudder.
You know, we've disagreed on things before, but you and I see exactly eye-to-eye on this. It is truly frightening. And for more reasons than that... I've been thinking lately a lot about a Ben Franklin quote: [house.gov]
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
Sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I think Ben was really on to something there. I fear what he meant was that all Republics are, at best, a temporary construct. That a free Republic of Men can only, in the best case scenario, last a few hundred years at most, and provide that brief of security... before it must be 'refreshed'. I'm not sure if I agree that this is strictly true, but it makes you wonder.
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 de
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: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.
Loaded Poll Questions. (Score:3, Insightful)
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Me personally, I would check Yes. Now if the poll was:
Do you approve of wire taps on US citizens inside the US with no oversight outside of the Executive branch of government?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
I would check, circle, draw arrows to, highlight and in all possible ways indicate No.
Using the FISA court to issue warrents and have at least SOME level of oversight is important to me. Mind you, this time last year the ACLU was pitching a loaf over
The quoted question ignores the FISC totally! (Score:3, Insightful)
The FISC does not require prior court approval, it only requires court approval, which is the exact fact that makes most of Bush's defenses of this program worthless. It is also relevant to note that using the FISC (sealed proceedings) would not result in our enemies knowing the intimate secrets of our anti-terrorism tactics, which knocks o
Re:47%? (Score:3, Insightful)
The President also said that Iraq had vast quantities of WMDs, and that they knew exactly where they were hidden and it was just a matter of going in and getting them.
So you'll pardon me if I take the President's word with a little bit of salt.
"where I come from people are innocent until proven guilty"
I agree. Bush deserves a fair trial.
Re:47%? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cut the BS about using a friggin BILLING classification to justify illegal wiretapping. If only foreign nationals are on the call you've got a marginal case. If a US Citizen is on the call, you simply can't monitor it without a court order no matter what Dubya is trying to say. Congress spoke very clearly on this with the FISA legislation after the last time we had a president taking 'liberties' with Americans liberties.
Re:47%? (Score:5, Informative)
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%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:47%? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, by "leaked" he meant "anonymous sources at the NSA told the press about it because they thought it was unconstitutional [foxnews.com]". Bush only started talking about it after the cat was already out of the bag, and his first response was to start an investigation to find and punish the leakers. The speeches he gave after that were just damage control, trying to convince gul
Re:47%? (Score:3, Insightful)
That don't make it legal.
"If somebody in Cleveland calls"
And that's all that matters. Cleveland is a part of the State of Ohio, which was accepted into the Union in 1803. All persons born in or naturalized by the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and are entitled to all privileges and immunities of United States citizens, such as those covered
Re:47%? (Score:2)
Re:47%? (Score:2)
Re:47%? (Score:3, Insightful)
The president makes the laws. Therefore, anything he deems to be legal is legal.
Um...are you from America???
America is (was?) based upon the rule of law. The doctrine of "the King can do no wrong" was exactly why the Founding Fathers fought and died to found this country. The doctrine of "the King can do no wrong" is, coincedentally, exactly what the new King George hopes to secure as his God-given right through the doctrine of the 'unitary executive'.
Bush must be stopped. If not now, when? If not by us
Re:47%? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is exactly as you said: people are brought up to not question authority. What he is trying to do is illegal, but nobody seems to be doing anything about it because they either think it is legal or it is at least justified by the situation (eg: Fightin' ter'ists!!1!)
As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the people who are most afraid of terrorism are the ones who live where there is the absolute lowest chance of being targeted?
=Smidge=
(Ter'ists ter'ists ter'ists 9/11 9/11 mission accomplished!)
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:47%? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Bush made breathing illegal, you'd still have 45% of the people support it. People are lemmings.
All depends on how the question is worded... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:47%? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:47%? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if you asked Should the government have the absolute right to listen in on calls being made by known al queda members to people in the united states>
you would get a totally different answer than if you asked
Should the government be able to listen it to calls being made by anyone remotely suspected of be
Re:47%? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely is a tried and true cliche...but sadly it also describes human nature pretty well.
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:47%? (Score:4, Funny)
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/q-our-omnipot
Re:47%? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:47%? (Score:3, Insightful)
That does not make the President exempt from those laws. He is still liable for prosecution. As well he should be.
Re:47%? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:47%? (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
Re:47%? (Score:3, Informative)
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 i
You need to do some reading! (Score:3, Informative)
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 t
Re:Why Would He Dodge The Court? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because a wiretap doesn't yield the information you were looking for does not excuse you from obtaining permission (a warrant) to execute said wiretap.
The fact that you think it does illustrates just how confused you are on this issue.
Re:Why Would He Dodge The Court? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:47%? (Score:4, Insightful)
For the record, the media's term "domestic wiretapping" is a democratic talking point. Your phone was not being tapped when you called from Ohio to Wisconsin to wish your grandmother a happy birthday.
On the flip side, the president's use of "terrorist surveillance program" is a little off, too... surely the net was cast wide enough to catch innocent people, as well.
So as usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle - it wasn't exactly "domestic" spying, as they were targetting calls to and from suspected terrorists in other countries, but they probably did catch a few calls wishing gradma a happy birthday when those calls were in or around suspected terrorist areas.
But, from what I hear, the specific numbers targetted were to and from terrorist's cell phones found in caves in Afganistan and the numbers that they had stored in them. Is that really so bad?
Re:47%? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:47%? (Score:4, Insightful)
All I'm saying is you do not have enough evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not saying "don't impeach him", I'm saying that, until all the details come out, you have no evidence. Why do you think they haven't already tried impeachment? Because there's no evidence. If and when evidence shows up, I'll be behind you 100%
Now, as far as this particular article is concerned, it bothers me so many support warrantless domestic wiretaps. I can't agree with that; I'm just arguing that what the current kerfufle is all about may not even be "domestic" wiretaps.
I'm arguing that Bush could skip down the street handing out candy to children, and you'd be mad him for it, you'd find something in it to complain about. When you have a valid complaint, I'll agree with you. I don't like Bush, I'm not a republican, and I think there's a lot to complain about - but until someone has EVIDENCE of law breaking, I don't think you should just jump on the impeachment bandwagon.
Re:47%? (Score:4, Insightful)
EXACTLY!
Which is why the FISA court is set up... so that another party can review the reasons for the wiretapping and determine if they're kosher or not.
I don't know if the wiretaps were on domestic->international calls or domestic->domestic calls. That's the whole freaking point! You don't either... and the reason neither of us knows is because Bush bypassed FISA!
Get it now? As one of your favorite Presidents (I'm sure) once said, "Trust, but verify". (Reagan, BTW).
All I'm saying is you do not have enough evidence of wrongdoing.
I have evidence of the President bypassing the FISA court and wiretapping without a warrant. My evidence of that is that the administration admitted it. He authorized wiretapping without FISA oversight... he admitted violating the 4th Amendment.
I'm not saying "don't impeach him", I'm saying that, until all the details come out, you have no evidence. Why do you think they haven't already tried impeachment? Because there's no evidence.
They "haven't tried impeachement" because impeachment starts in the House of Representatives and is tried in the Senate. Both bodies of congress are controlled by the Republican party. If there were a Democratically-controlled House, we would be immersed in the impeachment proceedings already.
If and when evidence shows up, I'll be behind you 100%
No.. I bet you won't. You have blind loyalty to the word of this President. The only evidence (of the nature of the wiretapping) you have is the word of this administration.. and you're going with that. You believe in him. I don't. What we need is a .. I don't know... unbiased third party to determine if he's telling the truth about the nature of the wiretapping. Hmmm... FISA court is such a party.. why don't we try them?
oh yeah....
I'm arguing that Bush could skip down the street handing out candy to children, and you'd be mad him for it, you'd find something in it to complain about.
But in Bush's case, he'd be handing out the candy and charging it to me and you (a la Medicare reform). Or worse yet.. he'd be running up the deficit to do it so those kids would end up paying for the candy themselves someday... with interest. ;-)
Re:47%? (Score:3, Informative)
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 V
Re:47%? (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberty isn't about doing illegal things and getting away with it. Liberty is about having basic rights that are rights for a reason, not just because they sound cool or are golly gee fun to have. Liberty is about people who obey the law not being harassed or investigated for a stupid reason or no reason at all. Finally liberty is about protecting us from people who would subvert the power of government, whether you believe that person is Bush or someone taking office in 3 years who would use the power Bush staked out for their own ends.
Re:47%? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try again.
Re:47%? (Score:3, Informative)
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 toke
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 a
So . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this mean people realize that the reduction of civil liberties are what the terrorists want?
Actually, their stated goals are . . . (Score:3, Informative)
53% think it's OK???? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a difference a few words makes... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Death of a democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA: Here's the problem...the phrase "Americans that the government is suspicious of", can (and is) defined differently every day. Such vagueness virtually invites a police state.
Dubya has shown on several occasions that he cannot be trusted to protect our civil rights. That's OK, he doesn't have to be trusted....that's why we have (had?) the FISA, to ensure that wiretapping is carried out in a lawful manner. All George had to do was run his requests through the court, and everything would have been completely legal. Apparently, that's too much trouble for King George, who is aggressively pursuing the doctrine of the unitary executive, believes he is above the law of the land, and regards our Constitution as "just a goddamned piece of paper".
Trusting George and his Gestapo (that's right, I said it) to safeguard your civil rights is like employing a wild dingo to guard your baby. As of now, "Americans that the government is suspicious of" refers to terror suspects, but it could just as easily refer to foreign-born, dissidents, liberals, or slashdotters.
It's time to stop King George before he corrupts the dream of the Founding Fathers beyond redemption. It's time to draw a line in the sand and say, "this far....no farther". It's time to take back our country.
Re:Death of a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
To have third party look at the evidence and render a judgement on whether or not the "suspicion" is legally justifiable in the first place.
Otherwise the only difference between an "ordinary American citizen" and somone "the government is suspicious of" is the level of paranoia of the government, not any actual action on the part of the citizen.
KFG
Re:Death of a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no, it's *much* worse than that. This is the stuff police states are *made* of. It doesn't invite a police state, it *creates* one. Yesterday it was terrorists. Today it's pornographers. Tomorrow it's you. That is, if they aren't already surveilling you because of the pornography, which they probably are.
And once it's you, then they'll be listening carefully to make sure you don't say anything anti-American, or better yet, something against the government. Because really, there's a *big* difference between being an enemy of the people, and an enemy of the government. Expose a corrupt government for what it is on the 6 o'clock news, and you're an enemy of the government but a hero to the people and the press.
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.
What happened to "Government = Evil"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are so many patriots so happy to violate the constitution? You can't burn a flag, but you can listen on my phone calls without due process? Why is everyone a constitutional scholar when it comes to guns or free speech, but starts whistling and looking uncomfortable when it's comes to due process?
Is the world some delicate and beautiful flower that will be crushed by our founding father's foolish "bill of rights?" Are times all that different?
Has everyone forgotten why we have these laws? We saw the consequences of not having them not that long ago. Most people who saw the civil rights movement and Watergate are still alive today. Collective amnesia?
What kind of patriot are you, if want the ten commandments in a courthouse, but not the constitution?
How do you not call yourself a hypocrite, when you impeach a man for lying about his affair, but not a man who admits to violate his oath of office, and the law of the land, and declares he will keep right on doing it?
FISA hardly ever said no. There's only one reason why they would want to hide their spying from FISA... "terrorists" now include their political enemies.
Re:What happened to "Government = Evil"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What happened to "Government = Evil"? (Score:4, Insightful)
This begs another question: Why is it that so many liberals are willing to completely and lovingly give up their own and others immediate right to enjoy their rights of property (taxes), but fly off the handle when there is any kind of perception of obscure rights-trampling, even in time of war?
I think your question shows your inability to really look at what conservatives think. People often chalk it up to ignorance, stupidity, or even evil, when that's not the case. In your example, you berade the conservatives for mistrusting the government in one way, but not another, when you mistrust the government in one way, but not another. The conservatives want their rights respected (right of property), but are allowing the government to disrespect the rights of suspected terrorists (right to due process). Allow me to assume you are a liberal. The liberal view would be to disrespect the rights of the conservatives to their property while respecting the rights of the suspected terrorists to due process. You would trample (by degrees) the rights of all to their property, while protecting the rights of some (the suspected terrorists) to their due process.
I have purposefully misrepresented the issue a little bit (I apologize if I went too far, but if I did, so did you), but I hope I made my point: niether you nor the conservatives are interested in the rights of ALL. Your post simply shows that by your own standards (respecting rights), you are as guilty as those you oppose.
Now, to answer your question: Seriously, why is it that so many conservatives don't trust that stupid, evil, wasteful government to run a social program (just give me my taxes back!), but trust them completely and lovingly to tap your phone or imprison you without trial?
Perhaps it is because they see excessive taxation as a direct, constant infringement of their right to property (and the liberty that comes with it), while they see the infringement of the rights of a few (the suspected terrorists) as a necessary sacrifice to ensure the right to life of the citizens of the US.
Another thing that goes along with this: those who support the illegal wiretapping don't think that it will come back to bite them.
Re:What happened to "Government = Evil"? (Score:3, Insightful)
A fair enough question.
The answer is, the last several hundred years.
You see, the reason taxes and other forms of collective enterprise and wealth redistribution were written into the constitution, but searches without a warrant and imprisonment without trial were not, is that human beings were basically fucking miserable living in the kind of world Li
Re:What happened to "Government = Evil"? (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me set the record straight:
I think President Bush should uphold the law. Even the ones that make his job a little more difficult.
I am proud to pay taxes.
I could also do with a little less pride.
Rereading my post, I did
Re:What happened to "Government = Evil"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not. Have you been hibernating while "tax and spend liberal" became the watchwords of the right? Do you deny that reducing government, due to distrust for it fulfil its basic duties, is a central tenet of Conservatism?
Do you think it matters to the argument if some of their politicians don't follow their own supposed guiding principles? My point is, those principles are well articulated, and are totally contradictory and hypocritical.
Does it bother you when a party spends years propagandizing with some concept, and then when they change their minds, wish everyone to pretend that they had never been so inconveniently inconsistent?
Conservatives neither support free speech, nor oppose gun control.
This is kind of my point, actually. Conservatives support free speech when Clear Channel or Fox News are threatened with things like the Fairness Doctrine, but are against it when nipples slip out.
Americans probably take a rather balanced view on the matter of gun control. But in the political dialectic in the USA, Conservatives take the role of liberalizing gun laws as opposed to Liberals, who take the role of strengthening them. This is why, for instance, Bush's DOJ produced a document explicitly claiming that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, a highly contentious and even "novel" position (though one that I agree with personally).
During this dialectic while defending gun ownership or the right of Rupert Murdoch to propagandize on TV, a Conservative will consider themselves to be some kind of haughty Constitutional scholar, while 5 minutes later they will pick up the paper, discover that the 4th Amendment has evaporated, and smile and nod, as if it all makes sense.
They have been fooled into thinking that taking instructions from the talking box is the same as actually understanding what it is to understand the Constitution. Or for that matter, understanding what it means to be an American, or to respect or defend our freedom, or meet their responsibilities as a citizen.
The people who oppose censorship, gun control, the warfare state, etc., are libertarians. They often get called "right wing" by the left, but they also get called "Communists" or "left wing" by the right.
I'm not a Leftist, which is a mistake a lot of people from the Right make. But I'll add that Conservatism as a movement attempts heartily to appeal to highly contradictory groups, and has in a large part succeeded in doing so for many years despite the apparent necessity of collision. Libertarians get to pretend the government will shrink, while Fundamentalists get to pretend their church can take over the government, and everybody votes for Bush. For some reason neither worries much about the other. It does seem rather bizarre, I admit. But it is counter-productive to distract from the Contradictions in the Conservative platform by pointing out the rather obvious fact that politicians don't follow their own codes. This is about what many Conservatives, regardless of their background or where they come to it from, actually believe - not about what they get for it.
Re:Please stop... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please stop... (Score:3, Funny)
Unless your wife works for the CIA.
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
Operating outside the law (Score:5, Insightful)
obtained after the fact. This invalidates the "need for speed"
agrument. The very few times someone in the media has confronted an
administration offical with this obvious logic, the response has
always been regression into a vague discription of the current NSA
program being "another valuable tool", or needing "every tool
available" to keep the American people safe.
I have not had the misfortune of having listened to the latest set of
talking points being pushed. But as far as I can see, there are only
a few reasons to not use FISA:
held to account for their actions
Either of these motives is an indication of the Bush administration
feeling that they need to operate outside the law.
If they really believe in the rule of law, they should move change the
law to fit the times. If not, they are just showing their contempt
for the rule of law.
I think the framers of the American Constitution are turning in their
gaves right now.
That's exactly it (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no reason at all not to even go through FISA... unless they want to do something truly immoral and illegal.
This is a heads up to anyone paying attention that Bush's people are off the reservation, and are spying on peolpe other than terrorists - or that their definition of "terrorist" is becoming something that would surprise you.
And anyone who does not believe politicians (even their favorites) capable of doing something wrong when left unsupervised should have both their head (if you're that gullible, stay in your home where it's safe, and don't answer the door) and their American citizenship (we have a country where checks and balances are the law of the land, period), examined.
Ordinary Americans? (Score:5, Funny)
Whew. It's a good thing I'm an ordinary American, unlike the rest of you commie techno-freak Slashdotters.
Re:Ordinary Americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
While the parent has been moderated up for making a funny statement (and it is), the statement also cuts to the deathly serious nature of what exactly is wrong with the NSA wiretapping program. Few people, myself included, debate that we need as much intel as possible to try and curb future terrorist attacks. I do not debate that there are times when expediency is needed, as provided for in the FISA. While there are surely plenty of persons surveilled with probably cause, who is to say that "ordinary Americans" couldn't be next, with or without probable cause?
Traditionally, the person to say is the judicial and, to a lesser extent, the legislative branches. But, without the judicial or congressional checks, which this administration has flouted, it the President (along with the attorney general, and others) who has decided. The framers of the constitution were fearful of that kind of unchecked power in the hands of the presidency. I for one am even more skeptical of this presidency.
President Nixon was forced into resignation for ordering, and subsequently attempting to cover-up, the break-in at the Watergate Hotel (among other abuses, such as bombing Cambodia). That, too, was in some ways a President using his powers to spy on his enemies (in this case, the DNC), and breaking the law to do so. In this case, the president has been given a lot of leeway because the enemies are terrorists - enemies of the state and people. However, I (and numerous legal scholars, and half of Congress to boot) suspect that the President has still broken the law in pursuit of these enemies.
If Nixon was forced into resignation (lest he be impeached), shouldn't this President at least be under more heat than he currently is receiving? I asking a genuine question: can someone explain to me why more Americans are not up in arms over this?
Fear is the key (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, it's sad that the country is pretty much giving the president a wash on this. But then, nobody said much about the USA PATRIOT act either. We had what, two senators vote against it the first time around?
It's totally unacceptable (Score:2)
I have no problems with wiretapping. Bush just needs to get authorization and have some oversight. If he would just use the proper channels, this wouldn't even be an issue. Tapping converstions on your own stinks of communism and evil dictatorships.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]The question was loaded, and STILL... (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice that the question isn't about 'wiretapping whomever the president decides he doesn't like' or even about 'wiretapping without appropriate judicial oversight'. It's 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'.
So, even with a question that implicitly assumes that the president is telling the truth and that there is no malign intent here, and that actually raises the Terrorist Bogeyman in its wording, STILL nearly half of respondents didn't support it.
I'm actually feeling quite positive here. Not only are people waking up to the bullshit that's being done in their name, they're seeing through the trick poll questions too...
Re:The question was loaded, and STILL... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only logical conclusion, now, is that the NYTimes are inaccurately reporting their own polls. Heck, they inaccurately report a lot of things, why not their own polls.
Not to mention, the poll questions do not reflect reality, or at least do not fully represent the actual usage of the wiretaps. The poll question should have been:
That would be more accurate, as the truth is that even according to the original NY Times article, this is what the wiretaps were used for. In seems that has graduated to "domestic wiretapping" for the NY Times, Clinto News Network (CNN), etc. It does not represent reality.
You can make this whole thing go away... (Score:2, Troll)
Pollees are MIA (Score:4, Funny)
No word as to whether the people taking the poll were being eavesdropped on to find out their responses.
In fact, noone has heard from any of them since, and no further information is available.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Justification of ignoring FISA? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all in favor of keeping an eye on the bad guys, but I can't help thinking that they're dodging the law because their evidence is so weak even FISA is calling BS on them.
Court approval is the issue (Score:3, Informative)
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.
This is why we have a representative democracy. (Score:2)
Most people do not take the time to thoroughly understand the challenges before their society.
Arguably this is because they are too busy with immediate gratification, but it is also a byproduct of being worked too hard to worry about anything else. The average joe spends the majority of his time working, raising a family, and trying to enjoy his life.
Studying issues does not often contribute to an enjoyment of life, and I believe our education system does not adequately t
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.
I love Big Brother! (Score:2)
Not "has probable cause to search." "Is suspicious of."
Lesson: Your fellow Americans don't care about your privacy, and trust the feds to decide whether or not to search you (and them), without court review, warrants, probable cause, or anything else. Where's PGPfone when we need it?
different == terrorist (Score:3, Insightful)
Party lines (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems pretty evident to me that there is a large percentage of individuals in the US population that no longer think for themselves. They simply know if they dislike Democrats or they dislike Republicans. On any given issue they will simply spout whatever garbage their side's talking heads have been saying on television or political radio. It's unfortunate because can't hardly have a rational conversation with most people about anything involving politics. I don't want to hear the opinions of Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken regurgitated to me. What do YOU think? It's a truly sad state of affairs.
it's not wiretapping (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe it's traditional wiretaps (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Congress gave us this power (which they didn't, sorry) when they approved going to war against Al Queada, and
2. If someone from Al Queada is calling, then we want to know about it - and quick!
However, as another poster pointed out, this latter argument falls apart under the FISA laws which state that you can start a wiretap as long as you go to the courts within 72 hours to get the subpeana. And even at that - it's a secret court! Nobody has to know save for a few people.
So, why not do it? I'm convinced it's because of 1 of 2 reasons:
1. They don't care to have people know at all because they don't think that they could get past any kind of judicial review,
2. They aren't doing specific wire taps, but are scanning and reviewing automatically any phone call from a foreign source.
A combination of the two is probably in effect. I'm willing to bet that their scanning every call coming in from either specific areas (such as Afganistan) and having the computer start checking it out, then alerting an NSA staff member if something sounds interesting (either through voice recognition or just checking the number - if it looks like one that's been used in the past or might have been used by a suspected terrorist, start tracking it).
Either way, it's rather troubling. It's not that I don't think that Bush & Co aren't serious about trying to stop terrorism - I think they're serious about it. The issue is that this kind of behavior is always rife for corruption. J. Edgar Hoover used it to stop "communists", but most of the time it was to keep his power base in check with blackmail and intimidation. Nixon tried to use his power to keep his powerbase by spying on the Democrats (aka - Watergate).
And we're suppose to believe that this power - unchecked and unregulated would only be used for good? What are the odds that someone won't be tempted to listen in on Christian Amanpour's recordings - after all, she talks to Afganistans and middle eastern people all the time, and just happen to listen to her husband's conversations about how to manage the Kerry campaign (or some other ranking Democrat).
Even if people say they won't, we know that absolute power corrupts. If they want to listen on phone calls, fine - they have a process for that to help keep corruption down. If they want to scan all incoming and outgoing calls from the US to other countries, that's fine as long as they get the laws passed to give them the power to do so and check unbalanced power.
Otherwise, the temptation to do something bad will be too much for some - it was too much for President Nixon whom, by all accounts, was a pretty good President. Remember, he thought he was doing the right thing by staying in office, and never dreamed that maybe - just maybe - he had taken his powers too far.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Garbage Poll (Score:3, Insightful)
And there you have the manipulation of statistics to prove a point. Had they ask the question "Do you approve of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping on terrorists without prior court approval" the numbers would have been even higher in favor of Bush.
Really, the liberal media needs to stop with the baby crap of calling Bush "Mr. Bush". He's the president, show some respect even if you don't agree with his policies and call him "President Bush". Also, for the love of god, stop calling Bill Clinton "President Clinton". It's former President Clinton, like you do for every other one.
"Mr. Bush" (Score:3, Informative)
Blame Congress for lacking nads (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I support wiretapping terrorists! (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you trust this president, the unfettered and unchecked power for warrantless wiretaps is the first step towards a dictatorship. Even if Bush doesn't abuse the power, who's to say the next guy, or the guy after him, will show the same restraint? Our founding fathers codified this in the fourth ammendment because they realized the danger such power posed to democracy.
Does the fourth ammendment make life for law enforcement a little harder? Probably. But so does the entire bill of rights. If the war against terrorism trumpts the fourth ammendment, I don't see why it wouldn't also trump, say, the right to bear arms. Once again, even if warrantless wiretapping might be undertaken with the best of intentions, it's also the first step on the road to dictatorship.
Home of the brave? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that once we allow ourselves to be stripped of a constitutional liberty we're on a slippery slope. Maybe today we're only trying to justify the removal of unreasonable search and seizure. However who's to say that in the future we won't be trying to justify the removal of the right to bear arms or the right to free speech. If we as a country are not strong and brave enough to face the threat of terror without giving up our constitutional rights to do so, then how can we clothe ourselves in the vestiges of patriotism that were borne from those very rights? I used to like to think that I lived in "The land of the free and the home of the brave"; however it's looking more and more like we'd rather live in the land of the secure, and the home of the pragmatic. I don't see how we can possibly consider ourselves brave if we're willing to simply give away our freedoms.
Re:CNN (Score:2)
Does anyone else think this strange? You win a war once, then you stop. Is it meaningful to say that you continue winning the war for several years? Surely if a war drags on for years, then for most of that time you weren't winning, in the usual sense of the word...
Re:CNN (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point after all, our canels(I forget which president started that system), our highways (Eisenhower), the panama canel, our flying capabilities(DOD), our space capabilities (NASA), our oil based Automobile(DOD supporting trucks), our nuclear power (DOD-DOE) were all developed by private enterprise and nothing came from the gov.
Even though I am a long-time libertarian, I will say that there are times where gov. mak
Goering (Score:5, Informative)
"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."...
Re:Goering (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no use in multiplying examples. The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually o
Re:Hitler justified what he was doing (Score:2)
It's easy for me to say that drunk driving has killed way more people than terrorism in the last 10 years, but honestly, I wasn't at ground zero, and something like that must have really messed with a lot of people's minds.
Re:Hitler justified what he was doing (Score:2)
Did he? Poland wasn't even nominally a Communist state at the time, AFAIK. He justified his invasion because a good deal of Poland was land that had been taken from Germany at the end of the First World War.
IIRC, Hitler's Communist terrorist was Matthias van der Lubbe, a Dutchman, who burned down the Reichstag. Conspiracy theories that it was Goering aside, Hitler did rapidly leap
Re:got the karma to burn, so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I don't really understand what the big deal is.
[...]
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
Without judicial oversite and checks and balances, you don't know this.
It's like the same doublespeak Bush used when he said a year ago that under the Patriot Act wiretaps require a court order ("In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order."), and how he says these wiretaps are different ("I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," he said. "This is different from the NSA program.")
It's the same doublespeak Clinton used when he said "I never had sex with that woman" and then was confronted with proof he got a blow job from Monica Lewinski -- i.e., Sex = sexual intercourse, not ORAL SEX.
The lawyers on all sides will stretch the truth and mix words to make you believe something that really isn't true.
Re:got the karma to burn, so.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you're framing the question incorrectly. You think it is about wiretapping.. it is not. It is about the executive branch bypassing the system of checks and balances.
We have a terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, which has repeatedly stated they want to kill lots and lots of american civilians. One day about 4 years ago, they killed 3000 in a few minutes. This proves they're not just all talk, not just an imaginary threat.
Absolutely. No argument. Also... not related to the discussion.
They have operatives working inside of the US. When they get phone calls from places like Morocco, Algeria, Syria, well.... I'd like for our government to know what the f they're discussing.
Me too. So would most of us. Still not related to the discussion.
This is not about Domestic->Domestic calls. Those will not be tapped (according to whats being discussed here anyways). This is about international calls (though that is barely discussed in the summary, likely for partisan reasons).
You have no idea if it is only Domestic->International calls. Since they bypassed the FISA court, nobody knows but them. The difference is that you, mostly for partisan reasons, trust them when they say the wiretaps weren't for Domestic->Domestic calls. And make no mistake, all you have is blind trust, because since they bypassed the FISA review process there is no way for us to tell for sure. You trust this administration implicitly, I do not. But let me ask you this, and please be honest in your answers.... would you implicitly trust a Democrat President in the same circumstances? Would you have trusted Clinton?
If a practice requires that we trust the government, without oversight, then we rely on it only working well if someone trustworthy is running the government. Regardless of what you think of George Bush... even if you think he is the most trustworthy President in history... he won't always be President. That's where you have to put your partisanship aside and think about whether you would be ok with a practice if it were being done by a President you don't trust.
meh. whether its legal or not, every administration since the telephone was invented would be guilty of this to some degree, if it should even be considered a crime.
"Everyone does it" is the weakest possible defense. Past Presidents breaking the law in no way excuses current Presidents breaking the law.
I obviously don't think it should be considering where the world is at to day, but as always, ymmv.
There is always a major threat to our way of life... where the "world is at today" is no scarier a place than when we all feared nuclear annihilation at the hands of the Soviets. There is always a threat.. there is always pressures that make some, like yourself (who don't have the insight to look at the bigger picture), willing to give up everything that actually makes us Americans.. makes us "this grand experiment".. just so you won't have to worry about the boogie-man anymore.
Freedom is more important than security . Some of our states have mottos like "Live Free or Die" and "Freedom First"... these aren't just hollow words. They speak to us today, if you'd only listen.
Our founding fathers said things like "Give me liberty or give me death" and "those that would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" (not exact quote, paraphrasing). Those aren't just lofty ideals... they are what makes America unique.
You're willing to let those ideals become empty slogans, just so you won't have to watch another terrorist attack like 9/11. The Osama bin Ladens of the world have already defeated you... you're cowering in fear and willing to let your country change in order to better "protect" you.... but they haven't defeated some of us yet.
One more... "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." You have succumbed to the fear, my friend.
Re:got the karma to burn, so.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Um
Re:got the karma to burn, so.... (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Non-transparent regimes (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hmm-clues are needed; time to get out the Clue (Score:4, Insightful)
Congress cannot make any law which supersedes the Constitution. They have, and SCOTUS has upheld them, but in reality every single one of them is illegal.
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
Re:More Obfustication (Score:3, Informative)
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.