64% support NSA interceptions
December 29th, 2005 at 9:22 am by David FarrarOh dear. Just as people were getting excited talking about impeaching Bush, a Rasmussen poll shows 64% of Americans support the NSA being allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States, and only 23% are against it.
Related posts:
- Terror Rewards – Air Miles
- More on US warrantless interceptions
- Do NZ Greens support a global parliament?
- A NZ First policy I might support
December 29th, 2005 at 9:44 am
I would be interested to see the question.
Everyone knows Americans are a bit dumb, but chances are the question was something like “do you think its acceptable for the government to intercept the calls of susepcted terrorists?”
Of course people will say yes.
Whereas if the question was something like “do you think it is acceptable for the government to intercept private phone calls between US citizens and countries that are known to house terrorist suspects?”, you would get a different result.
Having said that, we all know Americans are a bit reactionary, and will support anything that supposedly protects their liberties (even if by doing so they are in fact encroaching on existing liberties).
Ironic, but true.
Scott.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 9:55 am
The question is shown on the link. It is close to your second example.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 9:55 am
I’m amazed only 64% of people support the NSA intercepting the communications of terrorist suspects. Isn’t it a little weird that 23% of Americans have a problem with that?
The issue is, of course, not that the US government is investigating terrorist suspects but that they have circumvented the legal process set up to oversee the investigations.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Dim twists the question. It specifically asked about communications between Americans and terrorism suspects. Not about terrorism suspects generally.
The question wasn’t whether Judges should decide, it was whether they support the NSA being allowed.
Dim can try and suggest he can write more neutral questions than Rasmussen. But I just suspect he doesn’t like the result which is by almost 3:1, Americans are comfortable with what Bush authorised.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Then again, how many people we’re unhappy with Clinton? It didn’t stop him getting impeached for a little oral & a little lie. Seems to me like Bush impeachment would be based on breaking a law, not public opinion. It’s moot either way.
And who cares what the American public thinks anyway?
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 10:21 am
David – the government would be criminally neligent if it WASN’T intercepting communications between terrorist suspects and US citizens. But that IS NOT what the current debate is about. The issue is that Bush has (probably) broken the law by failing to obtain court orders to carry out the intercepts.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 10:21 am
DPF, you’re wrong. Dim is not twisting the question. This whole issue is about the fact that the actions were directly authorised by presidential authority rather than through the courts, right? I don’t see that question in the poll. All I see are questions about the actions themselves, rather than the process used to authorise them. But dispute over the legality is not surrounding the actions directly, it’s around the process used to authorise them.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 10:27 am
The poll is not done in a vacuum. This has been the major story in the US for a week. And the fact stands that 64% said they support the NSA being able to do it, not a Judge.
One can equally argue this is not about whether a warrant is required, but whether people see any difference in how a foreign suspected terrorist should be monitored, depending on the location of the person he calls.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 10:52 am
The poll is not done in a vacuum. This has been the major story in the US for a week
And that’s why only 64% of Americans say they support something that 99.9% of Americans should support. The poll is a meaningless red herring, DPF – and you know it.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 11:08 am
dim, you’re pushing shit uphill again. There has been absolutely no cogent legal argument put up on any of the blogs or newspapers I have read to suggest the President does not have the power to authorise that which he has authorised under the current law. The bleaters on the left predominantly seem to be argueing that the law should be changed to require the President to seek authorisation. The more rabid bleaters seem to be deliberately misrepresenting as law what they would like the law to be when clearly it ain’t.
Anyway, it’s all a storm in a teacup because the Dopey Donks have woken up (too late) to the fact that every time they scream “impeach” or “Bush lied” or “illegal wiretaps” his popularity increases. No-one has worked harder to improve the public image of their elected President than have the Democrats.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 11:09 am
The NSA doesnt do fine detail like ‘terrorist suspects in other countries’. Their methadology is to intercept everything . The rumour is that the NY Times has held back on a lot of what they know as part of the deal to publish a small amount.
Vote:When the public finally gets the full story and is asked if they approve of the NSA listening into ‘your’ conversations, the numbers might’nt look so good
December 29th, 2005 at 11:24 am
DPF,
Either you’ve no idea what’s going on, or you’re trying very hard to deliberately mislead people.
I’ve seen no-one in the US Senate or House of Reps point blank opposing the ‘right’ of the NSA to wiretap communications between terrorist suspects and Americans. Pointing out the dubious wiretaps that have been done, yes, complaining about some specific ones that were done illegally, yes. But not saying “they should never do it”.
What the Dems are complaining about is putting wiretaps on without a court order: ie, the president deciding he can just do what he wants and not follow the law. It’s about whether the president is above the law when it comes to wiretaps: not about whether any wiretaps are permitted.
Especially since under current federal law the NSA can apply for a court order up to 72 hours AFTER doing the wiretap, and since the court that grants such orders is so damned passive that they hardly ever refuse a request for a wiretap.
Adolf,
You and I appear to live on different planets. If you think what Bush has done is “obviously” legal and that he’s gaining in popularity, then I don’t think we can have a rational discussion. Because I can see you swearing that black is white and that up is down. I’d suspect you of deliberate parody, but that doesn’t seem your style.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 11:55 am
I’m with icehawk here. The question doesn’t raise the issue of warrants. The main point of criticism isn’t that the NSA shouldn’t do it, but that there is a legal requirement to obtain a warrant before doing so. The poll question misses the point of contention, therefore it’s responses are flawed.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
icehawk you are quite right. Rational discussion is just not possible. Try reading a few recent opinion polls and legal opinions from people who have some experience of American constitional law. Try wondering why the Democrats are starting to realise the ‘wiretap’ beat up is taking them down the gurgler. Contemplate the rational of Hillary Clinton in keeping her distance from the rabid left.
You’re damned right we are on different planets. How long do you expect to survive sitting on Uranus?
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Here’s an MSNBC poll that says out of 174737 responses, 86% believe Bush should be impeached. Not a scientifically valid survey, but that figure is a powerful indicator that the people of America are finally waking up to the danger that Bush represents to themselves. About time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561966/ [click the red live vote link one screen down]
As the article says, Bush didn’t swear to defend America, he swore to defend the constitution. Hello.
There is a simple solution, but it won’t happen. Appoint a true independent panel to review the intercepts. Let them review ALL the names and times. Let them establish that ALL the taps were a. people connected to Al-Qaeda b. covered intelligence that did assist and aid the sovereign interests of the USA and c. not a single tap had even the suggestion of an abuse of power.
It won’t happen because Bush was almost certainly sweeping everybody and the suggestion has been made he was using some of it for his own political ends. That explains a lot. Of course, those people who support Bush couldn’t possibli conceive he would engage in such activity.
And BTW, anyone who believes Bush when he says that even discussing this issue is giving comfort to the enemy, is a moron. What terrorist or criminal out there doesn’t assume their conversations are being tapped already?
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
> Everyone knows Americans are a bit dumb
This is news to me. I’ve not noticed Americans being dumber than people in other countries.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Impeachment? What Bush did was ‘probably’ illegal? Where is the justification for this statement? If it is so obviously illegal why havent there been any legal arguments or specific laws been cited? I reckon you simply refuse to accept that it is even possible that Bush was acting legally.
Why do you leftie dorks still accuse right-wingers of being rabid and fanatical? You will use ANY argument, take ANY position if it feeds your anti-Bush addiction. You see a poll that shows 64% approve and 26% disapprove and you draw your conclusions from the fact that the poll doesnt show a total of 99% approve. You dismiss the questioning of a survey and present a much less reliable poll to support your case.
(“Not a scientifically valid survey” Understatement of the week. It wasnt a survey at all. It was a poll of self-selected individuals and is utterly worthless for too many reasons to mention.)
You will say that Bush needs to be impeached for this, but really you just want him impeached full stop. You dont give a flying fuck what it is for, or whether the situation merits it.
You will make wild assertions like “Bush was almost certainly sweeping everybody” and ” he was using some of it for his own political ends” as if you fucking know!
And reid, you know fuck all about what criminals and terrorists do and do not know, so stop acting as if you are a fucking counter espionage genius because you read a book with Jack Ryan in it once.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
i wouldnt call americans stupid, but i reckon they’re pretty horrible to minorities and can be quite prejudice. i guess if nz had terrorist action taken against it i would be afraid too.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Reid said “There is a simple solution, but it won’t happen. Appoint a true independent panel to review the intercepts. Let them review ALL the names and times. Let them establish that ALL the taps were …etc etc”
If this were to happen it would probably be called the Refugee Status Appeal Authority and they would let those who were tapped move to New Zealand.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Ah – the old “everyone knows that the Americans are dumb” line. I’ve always had a problem with that – given that their universities dominate world rankings, they have more ‘hard’ Nobel prize winners than just about everyone else combined, and that they’re also the richest, most powerful, country the earth has ever seen. Perhaps they are dumb – but given the above, everyone else must be imbecilic (or is it just Scott).
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Kimble, for your edification:
–
“Impeachment? What Bush did was ‘probably’ illegal? Where is the justification for this statement?…”
Here’s a quote from Barron’s which is a bastion of conservativism.
“Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.” http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB113538491760731012-lMyQjAxMDE1MzI1NDMyODQ0Wj.html
–
“Why do you leftie dorks still accuse right-wingers of being rabid and fanatical?…”
I don’t know too many lefties who in the recent election gave their electoral vote to Rodney Hide and their party vote to National, but that’s how I voted. The problem with people like you Kimble and there are a few others on the blog scene like you, is that you haven’t understood that the left/right divisions of the past no longer apply. I’m a life-long conservative, I’ve never been in favour of or voted for anything else. However, based on an analysis of their actions, I think that Bush 43 is the worst Pres in US history. I also think that Blair, Clinton and Bush 41 are close runners up. If Hilary Clinton gets in next term, it will be a complete disaster for US politics.
—-
“And reid, you know fuck all about what criminals and terrorists do and do not know, so stop acting as if you are a fucking counter espionage genius because you read a book with Jack Ryan in it once.”
Golly gee Kimble, ever hear of common sense? Any terrorist or criminal that DOESN’T know NSA is tapping them is not going to be in business for very long. It’s not rocket science (except perhaps to you).
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Reid,do you think Carter, Ford, Nixon and LBJ were ‘good’ presidents?
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
>Impeachment? What Bush did was ‘probably’ illegal? Where is the justification for this statement? If it is so obviously illegal why havent there been any legal arguments or specific laws been cited?
Holy shit Kimble, it’s hard to believe you have your head either so far up your ass or in the sand. All the news articles on this mention the 1979 FISA. That’s the law he broke. There’s also tons of stuff about how, because they knew the (Republican) congress wouldn’t approve it, they left unwarranted wiretaps out of the writing of the Patriot Act which otherwise would have made these actions legal. Bush’s response in this is that he doesn’t have to follow FISA, because Congress has no right to impinge on the power of the president. Being the constitutional scholar that you are, I’m sure you’ll understand all the nuances of that debate.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
“Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense”
Which law did Bush disregard, huh?
“Bush 43 is the worst Pres in US history”
For Christs sake. Carter? It is Carters monumental fuck-ups that have caused most of the problems today. If you seriously think that Bush is a worse president than Carter, then there truly is no hope for you.
The blind hatred of GWB I see everywhere has very little to do with a rational examination of his record and almost everything to do with the fact that a)he is a christian, b)he beat Gore in a close election people were certain he would lose, c)he is a Republican and therefore evil by nature and d)his father was president too. Almost everything for which Bush is criticised, would have been applauded if Clinton had done it.
I am often accused of reflexively taking a pro-Bush stance. But this isnt true, I am often forced into this stance by the absurd and irrational accusations of those in what seems an anti-personality cult. You assume that Bush is spying on his political adversaries, there is no rational consideration, there is no basis in fact. There is only your prejudice and imagination.
The NSA snooping isn’t frontline counter-espionage. It is there as a net, it really is just a fishing expedition. It relies on the mistakes by the terror-operatives, like most counter-terrorism efforts. Having a huge public discussion about the methods of the NSA efforts makes it far less likely that mistakes or casual errors will be made.
The massive over-reaction to Plames ‘outing’, and the stark contrast with the Press’s own recent disclosures of truly sensitive information shows that the “people’s right to know” is simply media speak for what is “right for the people to know”.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
MCMC you really beat the band, do you know that? All you can produce is ‘news articles.’ Crap written by journalists, all of whom have their own agenda. You are nothing more than a puny pawn in the whole stinking disinformation mess which passes for news media. Come back when you can provide reliable legal opinion from practicing constituional lawyers, supported by precedent case law and you might be taken seriously. Until then go join icehawk, sitting on uranus with your mouth open. (Shoulda added that bit on before)
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
The question is not accurate concerning the issues at hand. It does ask if the govt. should be able to intercept calls between terrorists overseas and Americans. Even I’d say yes to that what is important is what is left out.
Should the telephone calls of Americans be tapped without a search warrant? That was not asked. If people were asked “Should terrorists go to prison?” The answer would be a resound yes. But if the practice were the President labels someone a terrorist and they go to jail without a trial the response would be different.
Also ignored are matters like some of the calls intercepted were entirely domestic not international as claimed. And the govt. gets to decide who is a terrorist.
This question is invalid as it leaves out the issue of whether this should be done, in violation of the Bill of Rights, without a search warrant.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Here’s a little question for all the gentle little throwers up of their hands in horror.
“If Democratic leaders truly believe the NSA foreign intel gathering program illegal, they should call publically for its immediate end. Otherwise, they are nothing more than the worst kinds of political opportunists, and should be roundly called out for being such.”
Q Why do you think no-one has called for its immediate suspension?
It seems to me a key question which has not been publicly asked of the Dopey Dems and their even dopier chorus line in New Zealand is ‘Do you believe America is at war with Islamofascist Terrorists?’
I’m sure none of them or you believe it. Somehow 9/11 is just a distant memory like Pearl Harbour. A tragic case of HUYA syndrome.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
What about FISA, MCMC? Is it the ‘vibe’? Mabo maybe?
Congress has no right to impinge on the power of the president provided by the consitution. True or false?
2002 the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review – “The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. …. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Addressing Adolf’s question: ‘Do you believe America is at war with Islamofascist Terrorists?’
I do think that if the Bush cabal halted its uncritical support of Israel (courtesy of the neocons) and they withdrew from Iraq (as the Iraqi population and I understand also the recently elected govt want them to do), then they wouldn’t have the problems from muslims they do now. Bush and his cabal has done more to exacerbate the issue than he has to calm it. That’s quite clear.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
“then they wouldn’t have the problems from muslims they do now”
HA! Al Qaeda will view the withdrawal, when it does happen, as a sign of weakness, just as they did in Somalia.
By even acknowledging the problem, this administration has done more than the two before it. And remember it is the actions (or lack the of) of the previous administrations that allowed AQ to strike at US targets with impunity, and it was the realisation that the US was toothless that encouraged the bold steps of 2001.
If you think that anything short of the complete destruction of Israel and the populace of the US living in fear of Allah’s wrath will appease the global actors in terror, think again.
If you think that Iraqi’s prefer Saddams rule to the self determination they enjoy now, ask yourself why they havent formally asked the US to leave, and why Saddam is being held and tried by an Iraqi court.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Adolf wrote: “If Democratic leaders truly believe the NSA foreign intel gathering program illegal, they should call publically for its immediate end.
This point has only been made five or six times in this thread, so its only natural that less gifted readers like Adolf are still struggling to understand it – so lets see if typing in caps makes a difference.
NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT THE NSA SHOULD NOT BE INVESTIGATING TERROR SUSPECTS.
The PROBLEM is that the BUSH ADMINISTRATION appear to have been conducting the INVESTIGATIONS without the proper JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.
The depressing thing is that in a few days time we’ll have Adolf back here twittering about how the Democracts don’t want the NSA investigating terror suspects. It’s like arguing with a toadstool.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
The one thing about the destruction of Israel is that it would probably involve Mecca and several other large cities becoming a large sheet of glass. Rather reducing the ability of Muslims to achieve/survive the requirements of their religion.
Vote:December 29th, 2005 at 11:58 pm
dim, arguing with toadstools is not good for you. It causes you to spend much of your time knee deep in horse shit. Obviously uou are thus afflicted or you would have noticed long ago that the argument actually is about ‘warrantless wiretaps’ not wire taps themselves.
Do try to connect the brain before thrashing the keyboard.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 1:08 am
Scott, on what do you base your “everyone knows americans are a bit dumb” comment? Any empirical research? What makes you think the US percentage of “dumb” is any different to that in NZ? Plenty of dumb-ass, under-educated NZ’ers out there. Leave the sweeping generalisations to Peters.
Vote:December 30th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Kimble, you wrote: If you think that Iraqi’s prefer Saddams rule to the self determination they enjoy now, ask yourself why they havent formally asked the US to leave, and why Saddam is being held and tried by an Iraqi court.
Vote: