For those who haven’t yet seen it, here are the first set of the Rasmussen poll results regarding the NSA domestic “spying” story:
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.
Poll numbers of course have no bearing on whether or not the NSA program authorized by Bush (to the extent it has been revealed) is legal—but it does suggest that in spite of the decidedly anti-administration slant being put on the program by most of the legacy media, a strong majority of Americans believe that the program is a good idea, and that the President is using appropriate historical authority in authorizing and defending it.**
Will these results convince partisan Democrats who’ve been pushing the story that they’re not likely to gain much politically by pressing the issue? That remains to be seen. And it remains to be seen how SCOTUS will rule on inherent authority for foreign intelligence wiretapping. But case law to this point supports that authority—as noted by the FISA court—and in the absence of any substantive suggestion of abuse (as opposed to the merely hypothetical suggestions we’ve been listening to for the last couple weeks), the American people are erring, it would appear, on the side of security.
(h/t Karl)
snort
*barf*
Well, they do tend toward the opportunistic. I suspect they’ll give it another week to see if anything breaks, but do they really wanted to be associated with arguments that will lead to the overturning of convictions because the administration refuses to divulge the methods by which they have prevented attacks?
Charles Krauthammer noted earlier that we might simply have to change our laws if the current laws are unable to deal properly with the tensions being created by an enemy strategy that uses our legal protections to prevent us from preemptively reacting to a planned attack from within.
Most likely.
Probably not likely.
Nowhere in the report on the poll is the word “warrant” (or, for that matter, “warrantless”) used.
What’s amazing to me is that the poll result only garnered 64% approval for a very uncontroversial idea. I would think that more Americans than that would be happy with the NSA eavesdropping on conversations with suspected terrorists.
The poll is barely even tangentially relevant, ignores the important legal issue, and is being sold by some (no, not you Jeff) to demonstrate that a large majority of Americans approve of warrantless wiretaps of American citizens.
The first place I read about the poll was at Instupndit, who links to ”Ace”, who writes:
I think “Ace” needs to read the poll results again, and Glenn needs to read “Ace” again.
Since this story broke in the NYT, right before the Holiday break in D.C., I have believed that its release was timed to see if it could get legs over the break so that by the time Democratic pol’s returned to their jobs they would know whether or not to push the administration harder on the issue. What we’re now likely to get is, like with the rhetoric about troop withdrawals, more posturing for the media, but without the hard commitment of calling for the elimination of the program.
Two Corrections.
Obviously, I meant Instapundit – sorry for that typo.
And “Ace” just needs to reread the poll question, not the results.
It’s not about warrantless wiretapping, it’s about the program as a whole, which is only a subject of major controversy, in and of itself, for the tin foil hat crowd.
Hmm, this looks to me like a pretty meaningless poll.
Poorly worded questions, poll taken during the holidays (wonder what the response rate was for this survey?), very technical issues that’s hard to frame/summarize.
No there there it seems to me.
SMG
I’m not sure the wording is problematic, to be honest, if it is consistent with what the NSA and Bush have both said about the program (as opposed to the way the NYT and others have framed it). Here again is the NSA:
I can see where there might be confusion, though.
Would Americans support wiretapping Terrorist without warrent ?
Yes, most people wouldn’t blink a eye to wiretapping Terrorist who might call their American allies without warrents. Its called a war. Deal with it.
Ah yes, those damn liberals with their concern with the rule of law, limited government, and overwhelming respect for the Constitution.
I find it not very surprising that conservatives are willing to pitch all their principles in return for some bogus protection in some bogus war.
Oh,right. I forgot: this is faux outrage, not true Republican outrages like travelgate, filegate, haircutgate, socksgate, etc.
SMG, in his rush to dismiss the poll, isn’t going to notice that Rasmussen’s poll of W’s approval rating went down slightly over the Christmas period at issue. Weekend polls generally disfavor the GOP, as their base has family commitments and church on the weekends, which may be magnified where Christmas falls on the weekend. So if the numbers are skewed, they likely understate the support for the program.
Moreover, I’ll bet the Rasmussen numbers are similar to those of the long-controversial Zogby poll, before Zogby decided to publish the numbers for the response with Bush’s name in the question:
Of course, it’s the office of the POTUS that’s at issue, not Bush in particular, but at least Zogby was open enough to tell everyone how he skews it.
And even with Bush’s name in the question, he’s winning a plurality.
It seems that Democrats believe that the American public is stupid. (Which is not a surprise, considering the outrage and vituperation poured out on Middle America when Bush won a second term, accusing Middle America, essentially, of being nothing but idiots.) A war is a war is a war. I think the vast majority of Americans would rather be safe than politically correct.
One of the beauties of the American system is that it is open to change based on the circumstances. This is necessary for any state to survive, let alone dominate. The curren brouhaha over the legality of these programs is simply pendantic.
Conservatives support these programs because they see that they are needed. Remember, the Left is the faction that is fond of trampling on equality and rights (affirmative action? hate speech?). As far as conservatives are concerned, we see this as a very necessary evil. I think anyone who understands how the enemy works knows that such measures are necessary.
If Bush did not permit such programs, I would consider it endangerment of the Republic and worthy of impeachment (and I’m Bush’s number one fanboy). I don’t hear Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, or Robert Spencer (experts on militant Islam I highly respect) criticizing these programs – that says a lot.
SMG, in his rush to dismiss the poll,
No rush from me on this one.
I said (and dont’cha love quoting yourself?), “Hmm, this looks….et cetera” and “No there there it seems to me”.
Nothing definitive anywhere in that. Qualifiers everywhere.
The wording in the questions is, I think, incomplete. Nowhere (it appears) do they include the critical factor – warrants.
The central issue in this controversy isn’t whether the government should be allowed to listen in to conversations between terror suspects and Americans. The question is whether this may be warrantless monitoring.
Nowhere (apparently) in the Rasmussen questions do they include that qualifier. At least not in the ones they show.
Second, response rates over holidays are notoriously low. Whether that factor hurts Bush or helps him is irrelevant. The issue is the accuracy of the survey.
With that additional factor, I think the poll is not very reliable.
This isn’t about whether I like Bush or not or whether I support the monitoring or not. That’s an entirely separate and unrelated issue.
And boy, I really sound like a pedantic windbag with these comments.
SMG
We have a constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in our homes and less so in our offices, but the privacy of broadcasting is statutory only, since expecting the government to ignore shouted conversations is asking a bit much in times of war.
I say remove the expectation of privacy and get on with it.
Jim,
A few commentators here and about are true believers in privacy with strict limits on government intrusion no matter what the reason. I know one who thinks cameras in stores and public places is a violation of his civil rights. I think he totally wrong. But I do believe in warrents are need in your average criminal investigation, but support these wiretaps because there is a war. Does that make me a hypocrite ? Yes it does . Just like I believe in “Thou shall not kill” but would kill to protect myself or others make me hypocrite . My belief is not a suicide pack !
But I have a feeling most are like you. You don’t believe there is a war. No attacks in the US since 9/11 supported your belief in there is No War. Now this leak undercuts that ‘No War’ story. Soon the media will be saying Rove leak the story to undercut Democrats. You know the whole mindray thing.
You want to stop the powers of Rove ? Then stop acting like Wile E. Coyote.
Actually it remains to be seen “if”–the Court is usually reluctant to adjudicate separation of powers issues between the branches; after all, it is just another branch itself. For example, the judicial filibuster is plainly un- and anti-Constitutional–but no such ruling. Nor has it ruled on War Powers Act to the best of my knowledge.
But suppose it did. If the executive believed the Judiciary to be encroaching on his Constitutional mandate, he would have no choice but to defy such a ruling. For example’s sake, suppose the Court ruled that Kofi Anan, not George Bush, was the Commander-in-Chief. No president could accept such a ruling. It would then fall to the Senate whether to impeach the Justices or the President. Or neither.
I find it not very surprising that conservatives are willing to pitch all their principles in return for some bogus protection in some bogus war.
Jim,
Why are you not arguing for the privacy rights of child molesters? They’ve done their time, yet their whereabouts and their crimes are public information and they are restricted in where they can live ie. proximity to schools. A clear violation of their rights. No?
You and others love the constitution so much, that you would give up your own civil liberties in order to make sure that no American citizen could accidentally have 3 words of his phone conversation taped and then discarded.
You prefer to be blown to bits when the terrorist who was planning to bomb the mall is left to his private phone conversations. What you call “bogus protection” I call “a mall still standing with people safely coming and going”.
My family shops at that mall, Jim. So I take a more practical approach. The NSA may have saved some people that you would rather have died to protect the dream world that you imagine. You need to wake up. I have a right to know where the child molesters live and to know that they don’t live near my children’s schools. I have a right to come and go as I please, to take my children to safe places in a safe country. These are part of my civil liberties that I want protected. My rights as an American, Jim, and I’m not willing to give them up.
There are real examples of thwarted American citizen deaths and yet you’re pissed.
Move to France.
Ah yes, those damn liberals with their concern with the rule of law, limited government, and overwhelming respect for the Constitution.
The party of:
Welfare, midnight basketball, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CDBG, Section 8, Glass Ceiling Commission, NEA, NEH, universal health-care, smoking bans, handgun bans, etc, etc, etc, is for limited government?
“Overwhelming respect for the constitution”
You mean except for the 2nd Amendment, correct?
I find it not very surprising that conservatives are willing to pitch all their principles in return for some bogus protection in some bogus war.
If it is “bogus” why did Congress declare it?
And which “principles” do you speak of?
A strong national defense is in fact a principle I favor.
Your comments are a transparent embarrassment.
Good ol’ Jim Golden. You can always count on him to exemplify the moonbat argument.
No wonder Rush Limbaugh’s “program observer,” James Golden, prefers to be known as “Bo Snerdley.”
Hehe, aside from the Kosbats, who still think American troops used chemical weapons against civilians, Dems are nothing if not poll-sensitive.
Watch this issue quickly disappear into the aether, as though it had never been raised.
I’m not going to believe the polls until President Kerry tells us what his pollsters are reporting about this.
The Democrats’ argument (okay, and Glenn Reynolds’
on this issue, distilled:
1. The Bush Administration isn’t really doing enough to keep us safe from future terror attacks.
2. The Bush Administration is monitoring suspected terrorists. This must stop at once!
In case your interested in a concice summary of why the Democrats will not regain power in the near future, this gem from Jim should point you in the right direction. I would only add the insult that they have their heads so far up their asses that they can’t even hear the people laughing anymore.
There’s some interesting stuff on Christmastime public opinion polling response rates at Mystery Pollster. And the rate aside, I’ll stick by my prior observation that weekend polling disfavors the GOP, as the historical pattern was repeated in ‘04.
Plus, the absence of the word “warrant” in the question is not as important when you have 68 percent saying they have been following the story closely. I doubt that word moves numbers as much as sticking Bush in the question, as Zogby did.
Jim,
When NSA intercepts of DNC staffers phone sex calls show up on Rove’s desk–you’ll get your outrage from me.
Until then, I can tell the difference between keeping an eye or ear on terrorist assholes and FBI files that DID magically show up on White House desks during the Bubba years.
It’s this kind of discernment that allows me to tell the difference between your intellectual ability and that of the average cinderblock: Not much.
Exactly; it’s all about that damn cat all over again, Jim. I’m so tired of having to keep going over this. Can’t we all just Move On now?
tw: Much.
« …the American people are erring, it would appear, on the side of security… »
Ah the Halcyon days of Nixonian efficacy, when you could eavesdrop ad lib on those pinko fifth columnists and other Vietophile demagocrats!
Yeah sure, I mean why not err on the side of security? After all, to err is human, and the American people as just fallible earthlings…
And if we have to give up either security or freedom, we should surely give up freedom as professor Abraham Maslow brilliantly argued in his hierarchy of human needs and motivations … blah blah
In a 1979 interview, Lillian Hellman said the following on McCarthy, Nixon and their disciples:
“We were now facing a world we had never known before and had not expected…They were men cashing in in a quite scandalous way on perhaps normal and expected fears…McCarthy could have only sprung out of a certain war hysteria. I think something worse could happen in the futureâ€Â
Prescient words indeed
Other ways to ask the Rasmussen poll question that are about as fair as the one they used:
1) If President Bush broke the law by authorizing electronic surveillance of American citizens, should he be impeached?
2) Should President Bush have authority to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens without a warrant or court order?
3) If you received a call from a relative visiting Europe, should the federal government have the ability to listen to that conversation?
4) Should President Bush have the sole discretion to eliminate the constitutional rights of American citizens that he says are affiliated with Al Qaeda?
I mean, each of the above questions states the real issues about as fairly and completely—perhaps even moreso, especially #2—as the Rasmussen question does. If a poll question like one of these came down, you’d all go nuts.
Thing about giving the president, or any official extraordinary powers, is that power, once given, tends to expand.
Indefinetly.
Which is why here in America we have courts and a written constitution.
***
Mr Bush is simply using “National Security” as an excuse to do what he pleases in the area of foreign policy. Or what he calls foreign policy. Not domestic spying, mind you, but foreign policy. So, the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply, he says.
Mr Bush isn’t the only one at fault in all this, the Congress seems to have been informed as to the type of warrantless searches the NSA is engaging in, but until recently has simply gone along with the program.
It remains to be seen what the courts will do, but there’s a strong probability the the courts will give the president everything he wants.
‘Tis true ‘tis a pity; ‘tis pity ‘tis true….
Astronomers recently discovered two additional moons circling Pluto bring that planet’s total to three.
Dr. V inhabits the fourth.
But seriously, Jim, you blow an otherwise credible argument with this typical moonbat hysteria. To use a rough analogy, it reminds one of condemning the Bushies for massive social spending because they engineered 9/11.
Neither is this bogus protection nor is it a bogus war. What it indeed is, at times, is highly compromised “conservatism”. Keep the two separate and you may yet make hay.
The NeoCons keep backing into victory, then whirling around, wiping their brows, and declaring it Bush’s genius all along. They refuse to take credit for creating much of today’s political divide back when they took out 40 years of political revenge on the Clinton presidency … not that it didn’t deserve it with all the crimes it committed.
What irks me are the “conservatives” that, aside from the technicalities of POTUS-authorized surveillance, tip their hands and go emotionally overboard declaring that they’re comfortable with broadcasting their emails and phone calls directly into the NSA because they’ve nothing to hide. These “conservatives” are proud to belly up and basically talk like communists.
I think you’ll agree, Jim, that there are other ways to justify what amounts to such an Orwellian view.
This corruption of “conservative” principle is nearly as offensive and alarming and unprincipled as your leftist shrieking that domestic civil rights trump war powers. Neither are rooted in anything but intense partisanship, and both are blind.
And Carl inhabits the fifth.
Sheesh. The moonbat eggnog is STRONG today.
‘…These “conservatives†are proud to belly up and basically talk like communists’
Well said Six
Mr Bush isn’t the only one at fault in all this, the Congress seems to have been informed as to the type of warrantless searches the NSA is engaging in, but until recently has simply gone along with the program.
Congress has “gone along” with this for decades.
Your ignorance is the real issue here.
Not any instance of “breaking the law.”
Ah. And about that Constitution, Carl, did it include a clause on statist education? Medicine? Welfare? Social Services? Undue searches and seizures? Institutionalised sexism? Federal income tax?
How about judicial rule? Bench legislation? Tacitly merging branches of government with lobby pressure? Professional politicians?
In other words, all the things socialists on both sides of the aisle have been rushing at for 100 years.
Lastly, for fairness sake, were you as vocal about Slickmeister’s wholesale anti-constitutional actions for those 8 long years?
Idiocy. Disengenuine, small-minded, self-important, shameless, moonbat idiocy, going around invoking principles you’ll never have the balls to fully accept and defend.
I mean, each of the above questions states the real issues about as fairly and completelyâ€â€perhaps even moreso, especially #2â€â€as the Rasmussen question does. If a poll question like one of these came down, you’d all go nuts.
“Fairly & completely” when you’re of the perspective Bush “broke the law”
Whatever.
Keep beating the horse.
Everyone “cares,” I assure you…
Dr. V
Lillian Hellman was a moron in that McCarthy has been proven correct. He might have been a prick, but he was a correct prick.
It is interesting to watch the Dems change their position on this issue, having argued the opposite side during the FBI filegate fiasco.
This War isn’t making us any safer, if anything it’s doing the exact opposite. Wiretapping ‘suspected Terrorists’ is fine and dandy, when there’s a warrant. When we get into the issue of warrantless searches then our civil liberties are put into question.
Here’s some more. From nearly nine years ago.
(Well, to be precise, those are more a historical observation—with 164 references—than they are prescience, but I understand you were trying to craft a point with leftist nuance, the righteous leftist perspective of time, and implied leftist moral superiority. You don’t need balance; you’re endowed with your political POV, and a lofty one it is. After all, Speaking Power to Truth needs only fucking intent, and need not bother with a balanced, fairminded perspective.
Perhaps try signing your moronic posts with ‘courage’.)
I was going to correct that, but then I realized that for Dr. V, it’s just fine the way it is…
How about these two MF:
1) Should a non-elected anonymous judge have authority to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens superceding the President and the NSA?
2) Should a non-elected anonymous judge have the sole discretion to eliminate the constitutional rights of the Executive Branch to gather intelligence and protect the citizens of the United States?
Does this also apply to the Judiciary, Carl?
I would like for someone to explain how allowing a single, non-elected, virtually anonymous official with a very limited background in intelligence and foreign affairs the power to usurp the entire NSA is somehow protecting the Constitution?
I don’t know what planet Dr. de la Vega inhabits, but if he’s seriously quoting Abraham Maslow and Lillian Hellman–Lillian freakin’ Hellman, for crying out loud!–it’s got to be at least 30 light-years from Earth.
T/W: “walked,” as in “Until you’ve walked a mile in Lillian Hellman’s shoes, you don’t really know how tremendously painful a pinched instep can be.”
Cheio:
I find it illuminating that you need quotation marks around this
. Because to make your viewpoint work, well Chimpy has to order the NSA to snoop on Harry Reid’s cheesecake recipes, right?
And yeah, the war does make us safer. Go read The Gathering Storm and tell me if you think Churchill was a little harsh on the whole Hitler thing (and those who wanted to hide their heads in the sand). Bin Laden doesn’t like you either. Even. A. Little.
Ace:
I was just making the point that Rasmussen question framed the issue about as innaccurately (or slantedly) in one direction as my proposed questions did in the other.
Except for maybe #2, which I think is a pretty fair statement of the issue, and describes what is truly in play.
Jeff:
If you have the time and inclination, a post on Stephen Hunter’s review of Spielberg’s Munich might be very interesting. Or a post on the movie with Hunter’s review as the starting or jumping off point.
Hunter is the best movie critic right now. Sensible, funny, able to see through the Shinola, and a terrific writer.
His review of Munich really zeroes in on Spielberg’s failings. It’s not really the moral equivalence accusation. Something both deeper and more troubling.
SMG
Leftists always put quotation marks around abstract concepts they don’t truly understand: e.g; “honor”, “art”, “war”, “courage”, “moral”, “goodness”, “terror”, “evil”, etc. It permits them to use words without actually being contaminated by them–like holding them away from their bodies. Far be it from them to be associated with a concept unpopular with their child-like and suggestible peers.
MF,
How about:
1) Should President Bush be given credit for saving American lives by authorizing NSA wiretaps that led to the disruption of terrorist plots?
2) Should the NSA try to save more American lives by continuing to wiretap terrorists?
3) If Ted Kennedy waited 4 hours to call for help, should he be charged in Mary Jo’s death?
B Moe:
Honestly, what are you talking about here? Judges don’t have any authority to conduct electronic surveillance. Under FISA, Congress regulated domestic electronic surveillance by requiring that agencies of the Executive branch get a court order before tapping certain defined communications. The FISA judges don’t supercede anything. They simply ensure that the government articulate reasonable suspicion that the target of the surveillance “may be an agent of a foreign power,” e.g., Al Qaeda.
This only makes slightly more sense. First you’re confusing “rights” with “powers.” Under the Constitution, American citizens have “rights,” e.g., speech, religion, due process, equal protection, etc. On the other hand, branches of government, like the Executive, have certain “powers” (or authority to do certain things). So you can’t speak in terms of the Executive’s “constitutional rights” to gather intelligence.
Now, you can talk about the Executive’s constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence as part of both/either his power to run foreign affairs and/or his power as Commander in Chief. But that authority is clearly limited when the intelligence gathering targets US citizens (see Keith), and it is also expressly proscribed when conducted within the US and not in accordance with a duly enacted Congressional statute, FISA.
FISA simply requires that a federal judge agree with the Executive that reasonable suspicion exists that a certain American citizen may be an agent of a foreign power. The evidentiary bar is extremely low, and very few applications have ever been denied. But in a sense, yes, the judge does have discretion to prevent the government from spying on someone when the judge believes the government has not met its [low] burden of proof. That’s how it was set up, and that’s how it works. It’s the balance Congress chose between allowing the President to do his job protecting us, on the one hand, and preventing abuse of that power and violations of the Constitutional rights of American citizens, on the other.
If you think that the evidentiary standards for getting surveillance orders are too high, and the judges have too much discretion, advocate changing the law. But don’t forget that judges also stand between, say, the FBI and US citizens who may be involved in violent criminal conduct—they too have discretion to prevent the FBI from investigating that potential criminal conduct and thus “protect[ing] the citizens of the United States.”
Also don’t forget that as a practical/political matter, all of the FISA judges were appointed by Rehnquist, no bleeding heart, so your claim that these are out-of-control judges trying to tie the Executive’s hand and harm national security just doesn’t hold much water.
Amen to that. Uncle Sam has been invading my private financial records for years without a warrant. Some unelected bureaucrat not only knows how much I make, but how much my house is worth, how many tolls each year I pay, what equipment I bought for my business, and how much I gave to charities.
My privacy has been sacrificed!!!!
Can’t get much more disingenuous than that, except I guess to imply that an out-of-control President is attempting to overthrow the government.
Agreed I used some inaccurate wording, but my primary question is this: why should a judge be given ultimate authority over national security intelligence?
Because, B Moe, Chimpy is trying to overthrow the government.
Any lickspittle lib can tell you that.
It’s all here.
I kinda “agree” with B Moe. Judges agree with no-knock on the most specius reasoning, and a judge turned prosecuter overthrew a government and gave communism one of their greatest victories while selling millions into slavery.
There should be no expectation of privacy for public acts.
Hmmmm.
“Dr. V and the Fourth Moon of Pluto”.
Sounds like a movie I’d pay money to watch.
Frankly I’d join in but the ridiculous arguments from the gentlemen of the left just makes me feel tired all over. So I’ll sit this one out until some people realise that there’s a decided preference to staying alive in this country.
sw: “rest”.
They shouldn’t, aren’t, and were never intended to.
Must I again recite the warrantless actions re Aldridge Ames, ECHELON, etc?
“socksgate
Exactly; it’s all about that damn cat all over again, Jim. I’m so tired of having to keep going over this. Can’t we all just Move On now?”
Hrmmm, I’d assumed that was a reference to Sandy Berger…