The latest Rasmussen Poll suggests that the Dems in the House and Senate are blowing it, again.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely. Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.
The breakdown by party affiliation swings in Bush's favor across the board.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
The Democrats better start locating "real" issues instead of imaginary ones or Election Night 2006 is gonna hurt. Not that I'm sad about that or anything.
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
If they had any brains what they'd do is come out and loudly endorse this program, but then call for an independent commission to monitor for potential civil rights abuses.
But they don't have any brains. They have Howard Dean.
That's probably because, obviously, groups like the NSA need to intercept calls. That isn't what's being argued.
My beloved is spot on as usual!
Hey, am I missing something or is Dean's World down?
TallDave I think you are right. I haven't been able to connect with Dean's blog all day.
For example: I consider myself part of that 64%. And/But I also believe that the President broke the law and should be punished for doing so.
Bottom line: The issue isn't about NSA wiretaps. The issue is about whether the President should be above the law. The answer, in case you're interested, is NO.
Keep your eye on the ball: It appears likely that the President broke the FISA law, and probably violated the Fourth Amendment as well as Article II of the Constitution. This is no small matter.
When the President is sworn in to office he takes this oath:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
He doesn't swear to protect the American people. He promises to uphold the Constitution. And, BTW, he doesn't get the final word on what the Constitution means. He'd like to -- for example, he'd like to appoint his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court. But that's pretty transparent.
If history has taught us anything it is this: No man is above the law.
Now some of you are thinking, "Who should have the last word in fighting the terrorists -- the Commander in Chief or a Federal Judge?"
But that's a false choice. The fact is, once the President starts picking and choosing which laws he can break and which laws he'll follow, then we're not much better than the dictatorships we're fighting.
Some of you might be thinking, "None of your civil liberties will matter much after you’re dead."
My answer to you is simple: Give me liberty or give me death.
We fought a Revolution and founded the Constitution to make sure no dictator, no king, no despot had unlimited power. Are we going to throw it all away because one man says he's doing it for our own good?
No. Not unless you let him. And I will do everything I can to stop this man, or any man, who tries.
My allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States, not George Bush.
Yours,
Wince
Nope, not one Democrat has said this program should be abolished, but a lot of them, as well as quite a few vocal conservative libretarians and many of the "get government off my back" crowd think there should be some kind of check in place to blunt the administration's unfettered discretion in this matter, something that might have a little more teeth in it than some commission with not power unto itself, something like a court with subpoena and contempt powers, powers to issue writs and warrants.
Oh yeah, we have one of those, set up by statutes that the Administration no longer feels obliged to obey. If Bush will by-pass FISA, who on earth thinks that he will abide by some freaking commission? Com'on, raise your hands if you think Cheney et al. will give a tinkers dam about the advice of some oversight commission?
Soft on terror, defense, national and homeland security? The Hell . . . You people are soft on freedom. Why else do you think that 36 Persian Gulf and Iraq War vets are running as democrats for congress, as well a a former CIA agent who's been most vocal about the execesses of the Bushies (check him out, he's running in your Michigan
Looks like the shoe fits.
For quite a few of them, it's probably to restore some sense to the Democratic Party.
Too bad the Democratic Party's current track record is to throw veterans under a bus for tactical partisan advantage. "Oh, you're a vet, here spout these talking points so they might have some credibility. If you don't sacrifice your honor and reputation, we'll make sure you don't get any more funding. Love, H. Dean."
That is if the proceedings are held in open court, which might not be the case.
The fact is that Rose set up a completely false choice between allowing the NSA to use every technological means to gather such intel or axing the program. It's typical Rovian technique of confusing the issues. The fact is that there were proceedures already in place to prevent abuse, which were abused. We want to keep the program, and do it right, under the color legality.
The question is not whether Bush should or should not spy on Americans who are in communication with suspected terrorists. The dilemma is whether Bush should follow the law when he does so or should he just be able to make things up as he goes along.
Got it kids? That's the question upon which reasonable people can disagree. Wince, from what I know of our system and what I've read on the subject, I'm satisfied that the law was not followed. I'm also satisfied that you will remain unconvinced.
Except it's still not the question. You keep trying to frame it that way, but it's not the case at all. Wince already explained why, I've done so before.
And when evidence poisoned by the tree of illegal wiretaps starts getting supressed which leads to suspected terrorists being freed, I won't be any happier than you, but I will smuggly remind you I told you so.
Because apparently you'd prefer that 99% of that intelligence not be gathered in the first place, regardless of your protestations to the contrary. We're gathering intelligence on enemy activities, NOT preparing criminal charges. If something is monitored that would require the administration to pursue charges against an American, they can retroactively get the warrant. They have not had to, they have been locating enemy targets to monitor and kill.
Sixty-four percent (64%) believe that the NSA should be allowed ot intercept conversations between terrorist suspects and people living in the US.
Shouldn't that number be, like, 95%? Gosh, the poll doesn't even say "US citizens." Just "people living in the US." It's like the poll is designed to get a really high number but only gets 64%.
Hell, I'm part of that 64% majority. What I can't figure out is why the majority isn't 95%.
I suspect the numbers are soft because Bush has been so truculent on the issue.
Despite Bush's recent rebound in the polls which were due to a somewhat moderated response to events in Iraq (conceding mistakes, accepting responsibility, etc.) he seems to have reverted back to the Real Bush: Dismissive, arrogant, agressive, condescending, etc.
I suspect that's why his numbers on this issue are so soft.
P.S. Oh -- and wait til the poll question asks this: "Should the President be able the break the law any time he chooses?"
of course it is ara. You want it to be beside the point.
Mark when is the court going to decide this? As of yett there is no law broken so how is the court going to get the case?
why would a scientific pollster ask such a stupid question?
BTW, how would you answer that question?
Notice what happens if, rather than intentionally targetting U.S. persons, you intentionally target phone numbers and email addresses.
You crack me up!
These definitions are serious. Read this:
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
Thus, if the NSA is not intentionally targeting a Unitied States person, if the aquisition does not occur in the U.S., if it is a foreign phone call, and the monitoring device is offshore, the NSA has not broken the law. Well, the program described targeted foreign phone calls from seized phone numbers and email addresses, monitored from offshore. No U.S. persons targeted.
The fact is, you don't know who you are going to get when you monitor a phone. Cell phones, in particular, are subject to a type of fraud called cloning, where the cell phone characteristics are copied into another device. Someone can then make illegal calls, charging them to the original number. And what is the most common use for that fraud? Selling international minutes. So if you were an Al Queada operative who wanted some very hard to trace international minutes, would you buy some cloned phone minutes from your local hustler? Would you clone phones yourself?
You think these definitions are meaningless? So sorry, they are not.
Yours,
Wince
Skip on to page two and you'll see that Gerry Spence is already suing the government on behalf of Brandon Mayfield, the Portland lawyer who was mistakenly arrested as part of the Madrid bombings, as well as the other members of the "Portland Seven" may have standing to review whether they were wrongly accused based on the NSA program -- and they should be entitled to find out. Pat Brown, the lawyer who represents the "Lakawana Six" is very interested in the program.
And how could we forget Jose Padilla, the American citizen deemed an enemy combatant who's been held indefinitely, without trial -- to me, a clear breach of his constitutional right to a speedy trial -- has some buddies charged with him who might be filing to compel discovery next week.
And there was this one:
And you can count on the Freedom of Information Act cases to begin before this spring.
Reframing the issue? Hell, other than in little debating societies like this, the only real action on this issue is in the the courts where suspecyed terrorists have been rounded up.
So John, don't be an ass (as in assuming) and accuse me of not wanting 99% of intel to be gathered at all when that simply is not the case. I want it done right, I don't want people that have the will and means to injure us to be walking the streets because of a technicality. We did not hunt down and kill these guys, we put them in jail. A jail they should never leave if they are indeed terrorists (not so much the case of the Portland guys).
I don't want them walking if they really were terrorists and you don't either.
"Should the President have the authority to spy on American citizens with no oversight of any kind?"
Because that's what you've got now. While the administration promises they are doing it within narrow guidelines, if they are doing spying without oversight at all, no one can be sure *what* they are doing. That's the real point here, folks.
"Do you believe the President has unlimited authority to do whatever he believes it will take to fight terrorism, even if those measures are secret and not subject to oversight of any kind?"
And one final way:
How many people reading this would sign the Loyal Citizen's Form?
http://tinyurl.com/8aegj
(click on the GeoCities link to get the PDF version)
Good for Gerry Spence! He is a lion for the Constitution. Based on what I know of the NSA's habits, and how I read the statute, I suspect he will fail in court, but I want him trying his hardest.
You might also want to read this section of the FISA statute. Then tell me how fast the FISA process is. Sure the court may stamp the paperwork in double time, but what about all the leg work that precedes it?
Consider this requirement: Are you expecting me to believe that the existence of a phone number on a laptop meets this burden? Nope. That means a whole lotta legwork has to be done in those seventy two hours. Not something that the NSA computers can do.
Based on a reading of the statute, it is clearly intended to govern surveillance of persons, not equipment. And futhermore it is intended to cover activities under the rubric of investigation, not signal intelligence. From what I can see this law is aimed at the enemies lists kept by Hoover, Nixon, probably not Clinton (depending on exactly what is in those grand jury investigations we tin-foil-hat-wearers aren't allowed to see) and other high officials, not at normal spook activity. That's why the definitions are so constrained.
Yours,
Wince