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%?

[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.

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.