Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Does this mean that the American public realise the terrorists are winning?
Does this mean people realize that the reduction of civil liberties are what the terrorists want?
Or were the other 53% confused? I would love to see the actual questions that are asked. Giving poll results without the source information is complete nonsense.
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."
Whew. It's a good thing I'm an ordinary American, unlike the rest of you commie techno-freak Slashdotters.
The government learned a long time ago that a population in fear will put up with a lot. Whether it's fear of a "domino effect" of communism, fear of swine flu, SARS, avian flu, millitias, terrorists, what have you. It's sadly too simplistic to make it a partisan issue, both parties have shown great aptitude in manipulating the population through fear.
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 is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
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...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"The telephone poll was conducted with 1,229 adults, starting Friday and ending Wednesday. Its margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points."
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.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
That "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" coming from an American is naivete at best. Innocence has never been a defense against paranoid "officials." Stalin used to execute people at a whim for political reasons, even if they did everything they could to be good cogs in the machine.
Bad governments have murdered more people than any other type of institution or any individual combined. It's amazing to me sometimes how so many Bush supporters can talk about tradition while disregarding history and regarding our founders' traditions and advise with open contempt.
Supposedly, he made this quote while being intervied by a psychiatrist during the time of his war crimes trial:
... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
"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."...
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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.
Forty-seven percent of those polled responded they they did not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'.
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 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 have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
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.
From the supplement:
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.
Al-Qaeda's goals are to drive out Western influence from the middle east, Saudia Arabia in particular, and establish a pan-Islamic state. I suspect they don't care much about our civil liberties one way or another. That's up to us.
On the other hand, famous conservative activist Grover Norquist says that if new tools are needed to go after terrorists, the President should get a law passed, rather than break the existing laws. Sounds quite reasonable, doesn't it?
So, let the public relations rumble begin!!!
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
They basically got everything they wanted in FISA, which is already a very creepy process in many respects from a civil rights point of view. It's a secret court where already many questionable things could be swept under the rug.
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.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
The big deal is that it is perfectly reasonable to devise a system of "terrorist surveilance" including judicial oversight.
The big deal is that if the president can authorize torture, detainment of american citizens nullum habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping of citizens, and torture by american troops, precisely where do his powers end?
The big deal is that the "just trust us" theory behind the current administration's national security policy is unethical, undemocratic, and unamerican.
the NSA was intercepting incoming calls from known or suspected terrorists. remember, members of both parties were informed aboit the activities since the program was undertaken, and there was no grave concern expressed then. now, i'm not a lawyer (as I'm sure most of us here aren't either), so I can't comment on the specific legalities. but it was not wiretapping, but international call interception. huge difference. and you know what, he'd better be doing that. if he wasn't, wouldn't his critics have said he wasn't "connecting the dots"?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
The argument has been made in two ways:
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Now Bushie doesn't want us to refer to this program as "Domestic Spying", but rather "Terrorist Survelliance". How's that for some Orwellian word play? The worst part about all of this is the American people, once again, have demonstrated that they will allow their leaders to do anything, absolutely anything, as long as a couple buzzwords are tossed in. A politician can introduce a bill that sanctions the torture of grandmothers, and it will pass with little scrutiny as long as he repeats "terrorists" and "sex offenders" a few times.
The poll found that 53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism"; 46 percent disapproved. When the question was asked stripped of any mention of terrorism, 46 percent of those respondents approved, and 50 percent said they disapproved.
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.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin
What part of that don't people get?
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?
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.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
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. make sense. One is to help push us off oil.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"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.
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.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
So please, stop promoting the left wing dogma that your rights are somehow being violated...unless you have some kind of proof that specifally YOUR rights have been violated.
I can be arrested and detained without cause, indefinitely, if the government decides to label me a "terrorist".
Due process is gone.... if the government decides that by posting this message, I am indeed a "terrorist", I can be locked up... without due process, without being allowed to contact my lawyer, without access to my family, and without the ability to post bail... indefinitely.
There's one civil right gone. 5th Amendment... blown to bits.
How about this one: My phone can be tapped, without probably cause, simply because the other end of the phone call is overseas (or not, we don't know for sure since Bush/NSA isn't letting the FISA court see what calls they're tapping). 4th Amendment.. ripped to shreds.
Quit drinking the Limbaugh koolaid. If this was happening under a Democrat President, you and your buddies in the Michigan militia would be storming Washington. You got impeachment proceedings started for far less.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Do you approve of using wire taps to stop terrorist attacks:
[ ] 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 "secret court" and lack of oversight.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
It's an open question as to whether any purely domestic conversations have been tapped; the administration has claimed not, but there have been leaks to the opposite. There are also serious questions as to whether results from the warrantless wiretaps were used to seek later FISA warrants without informing the judges - causing one FISA judge to resign in protest. The program also seems to have changed at least once based on questions about its legality, so that even if warrants are sought for domestic wiretaps now it doesn't mean this was the case throughout the program. IMO, only an independent investigation by someone with a very high security clearance can sort it out for certain.
Given that this administration seems to be treating vegans as terrorists and this warrantless wiretap program may have been the mother of all dead ends, skepticism is warranted. There are reasons why one branch of government isn't allowed to go off wandering on its own.
Why do you find it necessary to lie when the facts prove the point?
"And for your fucking information, everybody on the planet except Bush and Gonzales has concluded he broke the law."
That's a lie.
"The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?
The report reached no bottom-line conclusions on whether the program was legal, in part because it said so many details of the operation remained classified."
See that? The situation has many unknowns that require a thorough investigation.
I love how assholes like you screech about "BROKE TEH LAW!!!!" while completely ignoring due process and making idiotic proclamations of guilt.
Apparently you are so serious about enforcing the law that you're willing to ignore it to hang Bush.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
No laws broken here? Are the 9th and 10th Amendments, the stop-bits on the Bill of Rights, really that meaningless to you? Do you not realize the importance they have on limiting the scope and power of authority?
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.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
That Americans are not more generally outranged by this program calls to mind a relevant Ben Franklin quote during the 1787 Constitutional Convention:
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
and you can do all this without fear of retaliation from the govt.
Unless your wife works for the CIA.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
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 nature you describe, then the President should have no qualms with getting FISA warrants up to 72 hours after the fact since the warrants would be granted in every case if the calls are of the nature you describe .
The only possible reason I can think of for the President to bypass FISA is because the calls were NOT just "incoming calls from Al Qaeda".
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
It's not a political attack on Bush; the NYT follows the standard of calling politicians "Mr." (or, I assume, "Miss" or "Mrs." or "Ms.") most of the time unless there's some specific reason to identify them by title. Many other, mostly British, papers do the same -- "Mr. Blair," etc. As for "President," there are other stylistic schools which hold that former Presidents never lose the title; thus you'll see not only "President Clinton" but also "President [George H.W.] Bush," "President Carter," "President Ford," etc. Find a particular mainstream news source which routinely talks about both "Mr. Bush" and "President Clinton," and you'll have an argument. Otherwise your post is just more standard-issue right-wing whining.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Please devise such a system then. And get it passed through congress and signed into law (or adopted as a constitutional amendment, since it probably violates seperation of powers). Then get back to us.
... we did. And Bush deliberately circumvented the system. That's the point.
Um
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
And of course, all that's needed for probable cause is for Bush, Cheney or whatever faceless functionary is the guy of the day to decidde you must be, right? Whataver happened to judicial oversight and checks and balances? This is exactly the problem- no one is watching the watchers, and that's The recipe for fascism, which was what the whole structure of constitutional law was set up to prevent. Whatever happened to the spirirt of patriotism and courage that gave our country such strength? Did we give it up for comforting lies and "bread and circuses"? The thing everyone needs to remember is this- The state is inherently the enemy of the people. It always has been and it always will be, with the exception of brief periods of time when people overturn it and create a new state- which will then, sooner or later become exactly like the old one, only better at screwing the populace. If you trust the state, you are complicit in your own subjugation. Questioning authority is not a crime- it's a moral obligation. Aw, screw it- I'm gonna go slink off to my criminal enclave with all the rest of the fools who believe in freedom...
"What? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the constant beeping of my bullshit detector..."
So...what exactly is wrong with the current law, FISA?
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?
The snippet above says 47% do not support 'wiretapping in order to reduce the threat of terrorism'. That's NOT what the actual article says: the word "warrantless" is what's missing. I ABSOLUTELY support wiretapping terrorists, drug dealers, whoever...but get a warrant! It's freakin' EASY, and it's required by the fourth ammendment.
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.
The way I see it, the difference between the citizens of a democracy and those of any other government form is that the government is ours, and the responsibility for its care is likewise ours. If we only become concerned with the actions of our government when it affects us directly, we are abrogating our responsibility as citizens. Also, an American citizen being a terrorist is not for the president to decide, nor for the court of public opinion. If I am guaranteed a fair and speedy trial by the law, I expect that right to be granted, regardless of the nature of my crime.
Those that support this surveillance primarily argue that we gain security in the form of protection against future terrorist attacks. I find this assertion to be highly dubious simply because I give the 'bad guys' more credit than to openly discuss their plans in any manner that might not be considered secure. However let's assume for the sake of argument that spying on Americans without warrants does indeed somehow prevent every major terrorist plot in the future. I still wouldn't support it because I'm not willing to trade my liberties for that protection.
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.
Don't you have someone you'd die for?
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Instead of talking about international communications, terrorism, and legalities, let's talk about a neighborhood. There are lots of people doing lots of things in the neighborhood: going to work, raising families, minding their own business. Something bad happens in the neighborhood. A crack house is established and gangsters have a shootout, killing several innocent people. The good people of the neighborhood, with the cops, close down the crack house. But there's a chance the gangsters might come back; the neighborhood and the cops set up a watch program to keep an eye on the vacant crack house and known gangsters. It works, but the fear of their return has not gone away. One old man, obsessed with keeping the neighborhood safe, keeps a telescope focused on the crack house. When he reports suspicious characters around the crack house, no one minds. He's keeping them safe. One day he realizes he might not be catching all the suspected gangsters at the crack house, he starts writing down the tag numbers on all cars who drive by the crack house. The crack house used to be the justification for reporting people to the police. Not anymore. He starts keeping track of the cars and people on the same block as the crack house. Then a two block area around the crack house. Then a four block area around the crack house. The old man eventually has information on every resident of the neighborhood. The local police are flooded with meaningless information. Not one person in the neighborhood can set foot outside without being reported by the old man. They live in fear of him. Instead of freeing the neighborhood from fear, a new fear is introduced to replace the old one: fear of the old man.
That's why we have a Bill of Rights, something the head of the NSA, judging from his comments at a news conference recently, has never read. Give it a read, why don't you?
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, ADOPTED 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I don't see how your quote proves that the NSA is intercepting only incoming calls.
Also, what do you think the Attorney General is going to say? "We've been intercepting calls from people who we thought may have something to do with al Qaeda, but some of them actually have no relation to the group." Sure. Who exactly determines if there is a "reasonable basis to conclude" if someone is involved with al Qaeda?
The problem here is that there is no oversight to the program: no checks and balances. The way it's set up it can easily spiral out of control and run amuk over the 4th Amendment and the rights of innocent Americans.
Blindly obedient much?
You aren't law enforcement. You don't have any police powers. You don't have any form of official immunity. The President, the NSA, the FBI, your local sherrif's department all are and do. If you read your states wiretapping law and the federal law, you will find exceptions for law enforcement. If your local sherrif's office, or anyone else in the above list, knowingly and wilfully violates your civil rights, you can file suit against them. But if they acted in good faith, in an official capacity, you will lose, 100% of the time. Even if a court decides the evidence isn't admissible. So, yes, in most cases the only consequence to law enforcement illegally obtaining evidence is that it is inadmissible in court. I don't think it's unreasonable to use the "law enforcemen" qualifier, since no one is suggesting that the President or NSA agents were acting in anything other than an official capacity.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
God, you are an ass.
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.
US Constitution
Article II, Section 3
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 that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Are you suggesting that the President is exempt from the laws that he is required to take care be faithfully executed? That interpretation makes no sense.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
The Constitution does not establish who has the authority to issue warrants, but that has traditionally been vested in the courts. I don't think you'll see that presumption overturned any time soon; doing so would invalidate every federal search warrant ever issued.
A little common sense tells us that Congress cannot effectively establish a court without defining that court's purpose and jurisdiction. Since one legitimate purpose of a court is to issue warrants, FISA is an appropriate exercise of Congressional power. FISA does not restrict executive powers; in fact, it is an enabler of an executive power. In order for the executive to exercise its power of "search and seizure" while meeting the Constitutional requirement of obtaining a warrant, a court must exist (be established by Congress) with the authority to issue the warrant.
Q.E.D.
The power in question is the war-making power, which the constitution grants to the executive branch.
Although "war-making power" is not relevant to this case, you won't find these powers vested in the executive branch:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
etc. You are probably thinking instead of this clause:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
but that clause makes no mention of "war-making".
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!