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."
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.
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
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.
The President is the President, not the Pope. While it has certaintly gone downhill (and continues to do so), we're not quite at the "what the President says is law" stage yet. Laws are made by Congress, and the President can either ratify them or veto them. If he vetos the law, Congress can override him with another vote.
The problem is exactly as you said: people are brought up to not question authority. What he is trying to do is illegal, but nobody seems to be doing anything about it because they either think it is legal or it is at least justified by the situation (eg: Fightin' ter'ists!!1!)
As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the people who are most afraid of terrorism are the ones who live where there is the absolute lowest chance of being targeted?
=Smidge=
(Ter'ists ter'ists ter'ists 9/11 9/11 mission accomplished!)
Shudder.
Ya know, I guess this is why this country was set up as a Republic to begin with, because as I get older, its becoming readily apparent that the people don't always know what's best for them. Marketing of this "War on Terror" is done so well that people are readily willing to hand over their freedoms for an obviously flawed perception of additional security. Those who rally against this government abuse and overreaching Big Brother attitude are labeled as unpatriotic.
Shudder.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
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!
"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
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.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Shudder.
You know, we've disagreed on things before, but you and I see exactly eye-to-eye on this. It is truly frightening. And for more reasons than that... I've been thinking lately a lot about a Ben Franklin quote:
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
Sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I think Ben was really on to something there. I fear what he meant was that all Republics are, at best, a temporary construct. That a free Republic of Men can only, in the best case scenario, last a few hundred years at most, and provide that brief of security... before it must be 'refreshed'. I'm not sure if I agree that this is strictly true, but it makes you wonder.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
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? Go look up Nixon's fun little exploits. He's the entire reason the FISA court was created.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely is a tried and true cliche...but sadly it also describes human nature pretty well.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
So if I'm talking to someone in Syria...I forfeit my rights as an American for the duration of the call?
Cut the BS about using a friggin BILLING classification to justify illegal wiretapping. If only foreign nationals are on the call you've got a marginal case. If a US Citizen is on the call, you simply can't monitor it without a court order no matter what Dubya is trying to say. Congress spoke very clearly on this with the FISA legislation after the last time we had a president taking 'liberties' with Americans liberties.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
You have nothing to hide right? So you wouldn't mind if people came around and asked your boss questions about you, right? You wouldn't mind people listening in on your calls with your wife about when she's going to be home and whether the kids will let themselves in, right? You wouldn't mind people listening in on your conversations and negotiations about the future of your company, right? You wouldn't mind people reading your email and playing "six degrees of galaxyboy" to see what they can pin on you (don't think you're that interesting? Neither did Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who got "renditioned" to Syria for over a year because his coworker's brother was a terrorist). We haven't even gotten to people getting your credit card and bank account numbers yet.
Liberty isn't about doing illegal things and getting away with it. Liberty is about having basic rights that are rights for a reason, not just because they sound cool or are golly gee fun to have. Liberty is about people who obey the law not being harassed or investigated for a stupid reason or no reason at all. Finally liberty is about protecting us from people who would subvert the power of government, whether you believe that person is Bush or someone taking office in 3 years who would use the power Bush staked out for their own ends.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Nope, you still have each and every right outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's just that the governement is going to listen to the call if they have probable cause to think you might be a terrorist.
See, that's the controversy - the government needs a warrant, not probable cause and they aren't getting them. It's not that they're being denied, they just can't be bothered.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!