Thursday, March 02, 2006

Americans oppose warrantless eavesdropping

Not that this is at all important to Senate Republicans (who are arguing with each other about just how broad the President's power to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants should be), nor to many Senate Democrats (who are having their usual inspirational debate about how quickly and meekly they will capitulate to Republican corruption on this issue), but a solid majority of Americans want our government to be able to eavesdrop only with judicial oversight and approval -- i.e., they favor exactly the law which Americans enacted in 1978 called FISA. From the latest Quinnipiac poll (h/t McJoan):

By a 76 - 19 percent margin, American voters say the government should continue monitoring phone calls or e-mail between suspected terrorists in other countries and people in the U.S., according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. But voters say 55 - 42 percent that the government should get court orders for this surveillance.

Voters in "purple states," 12 states in which there was a popular vote margin of 5 percentage points or less in the 2004 Presidential election, plus Missouri, considered the most accurate barometer of Presidential voting, want wiretap warrants 57 - 39 percent.

Red states, where President George W. Bush's margin was more than 5 percent in 2004, disagree 51 - 46 percent with the President that the government does not need warrants. Blue state voters who backed John Kerry by more than 5 percent want warrants 57 - 40 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

A total of 57 percent of voters are "extremely" or "quite" worried that phone and e-mail taps without warrants could be misused to violate people's privacy. But 54 percent believe these taps have prevented some acts of terror.

"Don't turn off the wiretaps, most Americans say, but the White House ought to tell a judge first. Even red state voters, who backed President Bush in 2004, want to see a court okay for wiretaps," said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

So, a majority of Americans think the President broke the law, and pluralities in 37 out of 50 states believe the President "clearly" broke the law. Further, a lopsided majority believes that the government must obtain judicial approval before eavesdropping. I wonder what those numbers will be if and when Americans learn that the Administration's eavesdropping on Americans extends beyond the limits which the President repeatedly and falsely assured them exist.

Yup. This is a real political loser for the Democrats. They need to run away from this scandal as fast and far as possible and work with the Administration to sweep it under the rug. Helping George Bush break the law with impunity and sitting by quietly while the Republicans try to give retroactive legality to the President's criminal offenses is exactly the right strategic move here for Democrats.

And it's important for the country that we not get bogged down in partisan squabbling over distracting matters like the rule of law and holding political officials accountable when they commit crimes. Just ask the Democratic consultants whose advice Democrats have been following since 2000. They'll be happy to explain all of that, as always.

28 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:11 PM

    I always hated the fact that Democrats seemed so poll-obsessed and would only fight when polls showed ahead of time they would win.

    Now, they won't even fight when polls show they should. So when do they fight? What do they listen to? Jeez.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:24 PM

    What we do NOT know here - and I tire of people SAYING they know - is whether:

    By standing up to this illegal wiretapping, whether the Republicans will be able to successfully label democrats as weak and "objectively pro-terrorist", or whether the american people will see through that B.S., and respect democrats for standing up for individual rights, and if democrats don't, it actually causes disrespect, because democrats in power are showing they don't believe in anything enough to stand up for it.

    Because the "beltway class" is convinced that making too much noise about wiretapping is a political loser. And you have to admit, the nasty political commercials that Republican strategists can be create could be VERY "Willie Horton-ish". And I'm sure the Beltway democrats have done some internal polling.

    I don't pretend to know the answer to the question. I am not sure how a person would go about finding the answer to the question, and I encourage recommendations.

    But I'm pretty sure no one ELSE knows either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't pretend to know the answer to the question. I am not sure how a person would go about finding the answer to the question, and I encourage recommendations.

    The single most damaging myth Democrats have ingested is that they lack the ability to change public opinion by persuading people to their view. They begin by looking at polls and if there is not ample support for a position they won't advocate that position on the ground that the position is electoral poison. It does't ever seem to occur to them that by aggressively arguing for the position in a clear, concerted and tenancious manner, they can bring people around to their views. That is the definition of "leadership" and - more than anything else - it is that attribute which is most lacking among national Democrats.

    I believe that's a residual sickness from the Clintonite Beltway advisers whose straddling tactics worked in the mid-1990s when the opponent was Bob Dole but are plainly obsolete in the George Bush/Karl Rove/9-11 political gutter into which our country has been dragged.

    In the case of the NSA scandal, it just so happens that polls show that a majority believes that the President broke the law and that eavesdropping on Americans should be done only with warrants. But as I have said more times than I can count, it is extraordinary that Americans have reached these conclusions since very few people are actually advocating them. If Democrats had taken a stand from the beginning that it is unacceptable in our country for the President to break the law and that there must be consequences for that - not exactly a controversial principle -- these numbers would be far worse for Bush than they already are. As these polls show, it's still not too late for them to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous10:51 PM

    Glenn,

    You are probably right - and of course I agree - Bush broke the law, and needs to suffer the consequences of that. That's what a true law and order president would do.

    Still, it would be nice to have this position be backed up by evidentiary reason, not "just" (and I cringe that I have to put that in quotes) logical and moral reasoning.

    If it were me, I would be willing to go down fighting, even if I would end up being "hortonized".

    But in terms of evidence, you ARE simply repeating your position and the beliefs for your position.

    Contra that, and I can't believe it is this way - the media is so owned by right wing provacteurs and shills, again, I could see how Republicans are licking their lips to pound Democrats with this.

    Of course, no matter what, Republicans will find something to pound democrats as "objectively pro-terrorists".

    My only point is that the arguments for, or against, are not fact-based, by based in emotion, principle, logic - and yes, faith. (In a good way)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lord, PLEASE let the Dems run on this in the fall!

    Glenn, 3/4 of the polled people support this program - the highest number I have seen - which means that all the WH speeches and television time on this subject are pushing up approval.

    Moreover, a heavy majority think that the President with such a low approval rate will prevail on this issue over his opposition.

    You highlight the preference of a majority to have warrants to approve this program. That is a natural response.

    However, if you asked whether people want the government to go ahead with this program if they can't get a warrant, I'll bet you end up with over 60% support.

    I would MUCH prefer that the Dems use the NSA program as their issue as you wish than the way they are playing the Arab = Terrorist card on this ports deal.

    However, the Dems can read polls too and they aren't finding what you are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:05 PM

    Robert Byrd has introduced a bill to appoint a non partisan commission to investigate the NSA warrantless spying. He makes a very compelling argument in this email update that it is a false choice for citizens to feel that they must give up civil liberties in order to achieve national security. This is leadership, and I wish that it would gain wider attention. It is good reading, and I hope you will take a few minutes to visit this link:

    http://www.byrd2006.com/news/news.cfm?ID=51

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous11:52 PM

    "Glenn, 3/4 of the polled people support this program - the highest number I have seen - which means that all the WH speeches and television time on this subject are pushing up approval."


    bart
    don't be so damn dishonest:
    people didn't say they support "this program." they were polled as to whether they support some program to eavesdrop on terrorists and people talking to them.

    they don't support "this program" but some other one, one which operates with a modicum of respect for privacy concerns and law.

    just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean other people don't.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous12:03 AM

    However, if you asked whether people want the government to go ahead with this program if they can't get a warrant, I'll bet you end up with over 60% support.

    Huh? You may as well ask: "Should the government continue warrantless spying on Americans, even if doing so is against the law?" Or how about "Is the President of the United States required to obey the laws of the United States?" Or "Is it the duty of the President of the United States to uphold the Constitution of the United States?" Or how about an essay question for extra credit: "Under what circumstances may the State disregard these words: 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."

    ReplyDelete
  9. M.A. said...

    However, if you asked whether people want the government to go ahead with this program if they can't get a warrant, I'll bet you end up with over 60% support.

    Um... they asked people whether the government should get a warrant. They majority said "yes." Bart's comment is a bit like saying "the majority of people like ice cream, but if you ask them whether they don't like ice cream, I'll bet you end up with over 60% support."


    No, the question asking them whether people would like ice cream (warrants) with their cake (NSA Project) ended up with about 55%.

    The question was deliberately misleading because it is impossible to get warrants under this program.

    You need to ask them if they still want cake even if they can't have the ice cream.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous said...

    bart, don't be so damn dishonest:
    people didn't say they support "this program." they were polled as to whether they support some program to eavesdrop on terrorists and people talking to them.


    If they more correctly said eavesdropping on captured terrorist phone numbers, the result would have been the same.

    they don't support "this program" but some other one, one which operates with a modicum of respect for privacy concerns and law.

    You want to bet?

    Rasmussen already laid out the program correctly and got around 60% support.

    just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean other people don't.

    My friend, people with any common sense don't picture themselves or anyone like themselves being overheard because they don't call overseas to al Qaeda telephone numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous12:22 AM

    Hey Glenn, thanks again for all the work you've been doing. Here's my tribute to spreading word about the issue, something I knew nothing about before I started reading here...hope it is passably accurate, and maybe even entertaining. The description gives a few details about what the movie is.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH6MQWSht6w

    ReplyDelete
  12. ceci said...

    You may as well ask: "Should the government continue warrantless spying on Americans, even if doing so is against the law?"


    Most polls have asked some version of this lie.

    The polls usually go something along the lines of "Do you support the President's program of domestic spying against Americans.?"

    Even that lie usually gets plurality support.

    Folks, don't listen to me. Get on your email and telephone and PLEASE get your Dem representative and senators to do exactly what Glenn asks. Keep at it until they get off their scared butts and take a stand to stop this illegal spying!

    I can ask for nothing more...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:25 AM

    Glenn, Republicans provide soap opera politics based on celebrity. Americans who live their lives day to day in the real world know better. We're smarter than you think.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous12:41 AM

    "Rasmussen already laid out the program correctly and got around 60% support."

    i assume you're talking about this:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
    "
    December 28, 2005--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."

    so NO, Rasmussen didn't lay out the program correctly - the correct question would have run:
    "Do you 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 WITHOUT OBTAINING A WARRANT FOR THAT SURVEILLANCE?"

    and NO, people DON'T support THIS program.

    and, again, just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean other people don't.

    As to whether "people with any common sense don't picture themselves or anyone like themselves being overheard because they don't call overseas to al Qaeda telephone numbers."
    The is a total red herring, and I think it's pretty apparent on that it's intended to distract from the question of whether anyone bothered to get a warrant to listen to these conversations.

    of course, you buy the BS article II argument (is the "war" on terror a "war" that can justify the prez exercising his "war" powers? No, it's just a cliche.) You willfully ignore the importance of the youngstown decision, and fail to see the essential difference between terrorists and people who might be terrorists.

    you have said before that if you saw any evidence of nixon-type abuses against political opponents, you'd oppose the administration's position. have you even bothered to look into it? use google. it's exceedingly easy to find examples of the politicization of the IRS, of surveillance of peace rallies and infiltration of activist groups.

    but you don't really care, so you?
    so dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous12:42 AM

    Well, they didn't steal elections because they were going to do what American's want.

    In fact, they probably have to break all kinds of laws and conduct a great deal of domestic spying to maintain control of the government that they have stolen.

    ...not to mention the treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

    In 2000, SCOTUS declared you cannot tell who wins an election by counting the votes. Since then, they have mandated non-verifiable, proprietary, "vote flipping" balloting

    ...no reason they should give a damn at all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous1:00 AM

    Glenn -- looks like one of your resident trolls actually posts more verbage here than you do.

    LOL

    More commenters "downstairs" are discussion the trolls than your post -- and the troll is posting more than you too....

    Says to me there is something all screwed up about the people that come by here -- they are elevating a troll to "lead" the blog by constantly trying to refute obviously inane, mindless talking points.

    I can't blame the troll, that's what trolls do.

    Why has the quality of the other commenters declined so much -- does a blog that brings "leadning edge" analysis to the news have to attract all the wierdos?

    And I am not talking about the resident trolls, I am talking about the idiots that constantly feed them

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous1:25 AM

    Well commenters, it may be time to make a big, no better make that a VERY big decision. What Mr. Greenwald will be contemplating late into the night will be a decision that each of you will face soon. Oh, for some it will be easy – just listen to and understand what your pundits are saying and jump on board as soon as you can repeat the rhetoric. For some others, who need to see the principles they have lived for somehow reflected in the new initiative it will be more difficult. It might be impossible. It is that kind of an initiative. On the good side, it is guaranteed to get support like the NSA issue seemed likely to, but has not. It will make Bush look bad. The only unknown is whether or not it will have enough legs to make it until election time. What is it? Well, it is an issue that polls very, very strongly and if successfully adopted by the Democrats can deliver them Congress. What more do you need to know?
    Well, you, ugh, know all that stuff about equal rights, non-discrimination and those nasty Republican bigots? Well, if that wasn’t very meaningful and important to you then you won’t have a problem jumping on board. Oh, you don’t have to lynch an innocent black person. Just innocent Arabs. And it really isn’t as bad as a lynching....well, the pundits can explain how it is all right. If you REALLY want to elect Democrats. Which way will Mr. Greenwald go? The long, slow very principled slog of NSA or the quick, unprincipled [despite what creative minds can come up with] assured success of ethnic discrimination? Tune in tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous1:42 AM

    Folks, if you lend any credence to what this Vart troll says, you're foolish. He prattled on about "no Dem has won the popular vote by a majority since LBJ" (which means nothing anyway), and that meaningless claim is actually false.

    Small, dishonest, delusional minds like that deserve nothing but ultimately being ignored.

    Ignore him and let him troll under another name.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous1:51 AM

    Ignore the sockpuppets as well, please.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree about ignoring the GOP fanfic writers, this blog has had a stronger comments section than most others. Of course it's inevitable that folks with no other outlet for their conservative views (like, say, their own wildly popular blog full of astute analysis) should join the fray, but unless there are valid rational points, let's just ignore them, 'kay?

    ReplyDelete
  21. notherbob2: It's rather gratifying to see bush apologists grasping at straws to distract from the political and security disaster of ceding operations of our ports to one of three nations who recognized the Taliban, and who are participating in at least a partial boycott of Israel.

    Desperate, much?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous3:13 AM

    i agree with Glenn that there's no need for the democrats to run from this one - it's a real issue, and one that matters to people - but I'm not sure what's to be done. ideally, how would it play out institutionally / legally?

    and even politically, i'm not sure how the timing would work:
    given that it's already March, how does the presumably slow pace of any institutional response play out in the '06 election cycle?
    or is this something to ride into '08?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous3:29 AM

    And began the chanting, "Collapse comments, collapse comments." Softly at first, but as more and more were exposed to the power of that unbelievable tool*, they too began to chant and the chant became louder and louder: "Collapse comments! COLLAPSE COMMENTS. COLLAPSE COMMENTS!" Soon, Bartilya's voice was no longer heard. And unity was restored to the community.






    You can't even be tempted to peek, their nontruthiness is hidden from view when the comments are collapsed. Thank the Gods, you can't even catch glimpses of their turd piles as can happen when scrolling by when you don't collapse.



    Bartilya: Whatever you wrote (which I didn't read, thanks to collapsed comments) is wrong.








    *No, Bart, I wasn't calling you an unbelievable tool.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's very simple: Without oversight, no one has any assurance that the administration is using this NSA program as the administration says they are using it.

    The American people understand this, in ever-growing numbers.

    Anyone reading ANY polls these days also know it's not likely that the administration will be given the benefit of any doubt, any longer.

    Our trust has been abused far too long. It will not continue without consequence.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous5:19 AM

    I guess I'm still an old fashioned patriot, but I really believe Bush will go down in flames over his law-breaking. Time is on The Law's side and theres no way he can keep things out of the courts forever. Even supposed right-wing judges tend to be rational when it comes to the basics of the Rule of Law.

    I agree with those who think the polls still haven't asked the question properly, and when they do they'll find even stronger support for FISA and anger at the govt for spying on Americans without warrants. Eventually we'll see real stories about real lives ruined by this outrageous behavior. Or actual terrorists will walk free due to challenges to this idiotic illegal snooping and the public will know whose doorstep to lay the blame on. The tide will finally turn even in the MSM, and they'll talk about the NSA scandal in terms of laws broken and punishments meted.

    But it will still be Bush's disastrous policies that will be his ruin. The Iraq debacle will continue its spiral and the economy will continue to suffer the blatant stupidity of Bush's pathological tax-cutting. And all the rest. I just hope some new blood comes along in either party to take adavntage. Even most of the good guys currently in power are so beholden to the Corporatocracy that they're merely the lesser of evils. If we have to suffer Bush it had better end up paying off. To see the Dems take over and do nothing to change things would be tragic.

    I have noticed the growing presence of trolls here. I wasted enough space trying to communicate with them to learn they're a waste of time. But I don't mind them being here, or even the space they take up, or the space taken up by all those who can't keep themselves from answering their repetitive foolishness. Probably the only thing that seems a complete waste of time are the posts admonishing those who respond to the trolls. Now that's a waste of time. It's ineffective and as boring to read as the trolls. As this site gains readers it will get more attention from trolls. I have no problem ignoring them when I want to, or getting a good laugh if I feel like reading them. Same for the posts in answer to them. Post away everybody.

    I now read this site first thing after I read the news. Glenn's voice is such a refreshing change, passionate and articulate. It's done more to convince me of something I've always known, but tend to forget in today's world of news/entertainment/hidden agenda corporate media; that arguing articulately for your point of view is still the easiest way to change minds. Glenn is so good at it that it's a pleasure and an inspiration. Keep up the good work and know it will accomplish something.

    There are some great ideas shared here and some very good writers/thinkers. If people also are writing to their Senators and Representatives, as well as media outlets, with the same earnestness that they post here, i have no doubt we'll begin to see results.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous11:35 AM

    One more word on the "troll" issue. An anonymous wrote yesterday:

    Anonymous said...
    And began the chanting, "Collapse comments, collapse comments." Softly at first, but as more and more were exposed to the power of that unbelievable tool*, they too began to chant and the chant became louder and louder: "Collapse comments! COLLAPSE COMMENTS. COLLAPSE COMMENTS!" Soon, Bartilya's voice was no longer heard. And unity was restored to the community.


    I want to point out that as the troll brigade has two divisions, the identifiable by name trolls (Gedaliya, bart,) and the "anonymouses" who exist only to respond to those trolls, giving them in turn something to respond to, it's important that the serious posters do what Richard just taught me how to do today: pick a name which identifies you, and check "other" rather than anonymous when you post.

    This allows the rest of us to use the collapsible comment feature and still not miss the posts of those serious posters who write as "anonymous" and make good points. If everyone follows this, then we can just skip over all anonymous posts.

    This is a great feature!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous12:51 PM

    Agree with Eyes Wide Open. There are so many different anonymice posting here, some of whom obviously are repeat (and constructive) contributors, that not choosing an identity using "other" in the Leave a Comment box is going to greatly dilute your opinions as more readers collapse comments to avoid this site being overtaken by a few tiresome trolls with nothing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous5:01 PM

    I weep for the future of my soon to be former party and our country. I am hanging in to vote in the primaries but if the Democrats continue to run scared from taking a contrarian position ensemble - in other words display leadership as Glenn so correctly puts it - I'm done. I'm deregistering, ceasing any financial support for the party and voting as I do today - one candidate at a time and far too often against the greater of two evils.

    ReplyDelete