Poll Finds Mixed Support for Domestic Wiretaps

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

Comments

Re:47%?

[dc29A]

It is ridiculous that 47% of Americans are not completely up-in-arms about this. We can't have our president breaking any law that he wants to.

I am actually suprised that only 47% are supporting it. With all the propaganda and "War on Terror" going on having 47% support is pretty damn good, not that I agree with it. It just shows how easily the big masses of people can be influenced by constant "War on Terror" propaganda.

So.. let's get this straight...

[scheming daemons]

Even when the question is framed in the most positive manner for the President (relating wiretaps to fighting terrorism), nearly half of the population still is against it?

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.

Re:47%?

[Guano_Jim]

Right now as the President has said it is within the law - they research these things. Of course it is up to the courts to decide if it is or isn't. So wait for the hearing.


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.

Yes, he could.

[khasim]

Perhaps you're not doing anything *illegal* but when there are unchecked powers with no limit (if he can ignore the constitution and congress...) then you can be wiretapped/searched/followed for any reason they like...such as promoting the opposing political party perhaps?

This is not meant to be funny.

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%?

[isotope23]

I have little doubt they would subscribe to the 'living document' theory, were they alive today.

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 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.