64% of Americans support phonecall tapping

[zendari]

Text

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.

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.

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.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdgeTM Premium Service for Election 2006 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a mid-term election. We will poll every Senate and Governor's race at least once a month.

Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During Election 2004, RasmussenReports.com was also the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.



Even 51% of Democrats believe in this. I guess this really shows how out of the mainstream some individuals are.

And the ad on the page is a winner too.

 

[HombrePequeno]

It doesn't exactly say whether they asked if it was okay with a warrant or not. Either way, public opinion doesn't have anything to do with whether a law is broken or not.

 

[Engineer]

Doesn't imply whether those people support tapping with or without a warrant, now does it? Conveninently left off of the question!

 

[Bowfinger]

I think the NSA should have that ability as well ... when authorized by a legitimate court order. That's the real issue, something the Bush faithful either cannot get or are ignoring to try to divert discussion. It's not the wiretapping per se, it's circumventing FISA laws and ignoring the Constitution.

 

[judasmachine]

64% do not deserve liberty, according to a certain mr. franklin.

 

[BlancoNino]

Do you think everyone is going to be monitored all the time? Do they have the man-power to do this? No. It's no different than getting a search-warrant and I'm sure you'll have to have damn good reason to get it too. I don't have anything to hide anyway.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Do you think everyone is going to be monitored all the time? Do they have the man-power to do this? No. It's no different than getting a search-warrant and I'm sure you'll have to have damn good reason to get it too. I don't have anything to hide anyway.

It is totally different because a court must approve a search warrant. That is the whole point, the point you guys keep trying to ignore.

 

[Dissipate]

These terror suspects are using telephones to communicate? How dumb would they have to be to do that. I would be using VoIP encrypted end to end.

 

[CycloWizard]

So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'. I expected better from Americans, but it looks like we've become weak with time. Guess I'd better stick my tail between my legs if I want to fit in. :brokenheart:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
These terror suspects are using telephones to communicate? How dumb would they have to be to do that. I would be using VoIP encrypted end to end.

It's cause most cells are not connected, and are not led by educated people. Serious operations, like the one conducted on 9/11/01, where there is an abundance of intelligence agents trained by former USSR specialists, surely use encrypted communications.

 

[BlancoNino]

It is totally different because a court must approve a search warrant. That is the whole point, the point you guys keep trying to ignore.

Then scratch the warrant. Americans spend millions (maybe billions? Can't find any research but I'm sure millions is reasonable to say) of hours a day on the phone. Where is the manpower to cover all that?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So much for 'innocent until proven guilty'. I expected better from Americans, but it looks like we've become weak with time. Guess I'd better stick my tail between my legs if I want to fit in. :brokenheart:

Forgive me for taking the conservative postion, but I see nothing wrong with wiretaps in and of themselves. It's an integral part of many investigations. You have a suspect (just a suspect, not convicted). You present probable cause to an appropriate court. If the court agrees your probable cause and your request are reasonable, it grants the authority to conduct one or more intrusive forms of surveillance. At this point, usually long before any charges are even filed, you begin invading the privacy of your target. If you then gain sufficient evidence, you take the target to trial where guilt or innocence is judged.

This is why court approval is necessary, to provide checks and balances so government does not abuse its ability to violate suspects' privacy rights. BushCo bypassed those checks and balances.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Do you think everyone is going to be monitored all the time? Do they have the man-power to do this? No. It's no different than getting a search-warrant and I'm sure you'll have to have damn good reason to get it too. I don't have anything to hide anyway.

If it's no different, why not just get the damn warrent?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I read a book once called "Body of Secrets". Anybody else ever read this? More or less it's a history of the NSA. Spying on your phone calls happens every day. The NSA isn't supposed to monitor communications inside the US so we have treaties with New Zealand and other countries whereby we share technology with them and have them spy on us for us.

Point is the only thing unusual about all of this is that Dubbya opted to have the NSA do it themselves rather than have our allies do it for us. Curious that he took that path though...

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Do you think everyone is going to be monitored all the time? Do they have the man-power to do this? No. It's no different than getting a search-warrant and I'm sure you'll have to have damn good reason to get it too. I don't have anything to hide anyway.

If it's no different, why not just get the damn warrent?

Telephone conversations don't last forever and warrants take time whereas posession of items last longer. Cops also don't need warrants if the dogs smell something suspicious.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

It is totally different because a court must approve a search warrant. That is the whole point, the point you guys keep trying to ignore.

Then scratch the warrant. Americans spend millions (maybe billions? Can't find any research but I'm sure millions is reasonable to say) of hours a day on the phone. Where is the manpower to cover all that?

There isn't, what's your point? No one suggested all calls will be monitored*. That's irrelevant. The issue is that some calls are being monitored without court approval.


*As a separate issue, BushCo did authorize the NSA to perform data mining operations to examine calling patterns for millions of calls with overseas connections. They did not listen to the calls, but they did analyze who called whom, when, and how often, as I understand the story.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Doesn't imply whether those people support tapping with or without a warrant, now does it? Conveninently left off of the question!

Yuppers.

I always though Rasmussen was pretty reputable, and I disagreed with the people who said it was right leaning, but this makes it pretty clear where their interests lie. This survey asked an intentionally misleading question in order to try and prove a point. And people like zendari are eating it up.

But of course our good friends on the right, as well as the jokers at Rasmussen, are intentionally missing the point. The question is not whether or not the NSA (or the government at large) should have the ability to listen in on communications between US citizens and terrorism suspects in other countries. The question is whether or not they should do so without a warrent. Confusing that issue has been the strategy for certain people from the day the NYT piece came out.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Do you think everyone is going to be monitored all the time? Do they have the man-power to do this? No. It's no different than getting a search-warrant and I'm sure you'll have to have damn good reason to get it too. I don't have anything to hide anyway.

If it's no different, why not just get the damn warrent?

Telephone conversations don't last forever and warrants take time whereas posession of items last longer. Cops also don't need warrants if the dogs smell something suspicious.

Sorry, you are missing one key fact. The FISA statutes allow for urgent taps to be implemented immediately, before court approval, as long as the agency then comes to FISA for approval within three days. Bush tried to float that excuse, but it simply doesn't hold water.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

It is totally different because a court must approve a search warrant. That is the whole point, the point you guys keep trying to ignore.

Then scratch the warrant. Americans spend millions (maybe billions? Can't find any research but I'm sure millions is reasonable to say) of hours a day on the phone. Where is the manpower to cover all that?

What does scratching the warrent give us? You guys seem really in favor of it, but are unable to provide any particular reason.

 

[her209]

When Bush authorized the NSA to tap phone lines without a warrant, he broke the law. Its that simple.

 

[BlancoNino]

What does scratching the warrent give us? You guys seem really in favor of it, but are unable to provide any particular reason.

'

Because it isn't going to affect me. I don't care if they are listening; I have nothing to hide. Do you?

 

[BlancoNino]

Sorry, you are missing one key fact. The FISA statutes allow for urgent taps to be implemented immediately, before court approval, as long as the agency then comes to FISA for approval within three days. Bush tried to float that excuse, but it simply doesn't hold water.

Why does that excuse not hold water in your opinion?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Do you think everyone is going to be monitored all the time? Do they have the man-power to do this? No. It's no different than getting a search-warrant and I'm sure you'll have to have damn good reason to get it too. I don't have anything to hide anyway.

If it's no different, why not just get the damn warrent?

Telephone conversations don't last forever and warrants take time whereas posession of items last longer. Cops also don't need warrants if the dogs smell something suspicious.

Sorry, you are missing one key fact. The FISA statutes allow for urgent taps to be implemented immediately, before court approval, as long as the agency then comes to FISA for approval within three days. Bush tried to float that excuse, but it simply doesn't hold water.

Indeed. In fact, the FISA regulations say that monitoring can be done for up to 72 hours before getting a backdated warrent. So even in the case of a surprise wiretap (how often do you think those happen anyways?), the rules allow for it to happen immediatly and get the warrent at a later time.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

What does scratching the warrent give us? You guys seem really in favor of it, but are unable to provide any particular reason.

'

Because it isn't going to affect me. I don't care if they are listening; I have nothing to hide. Do you?

What does that have to do with anything? Clearly you see some benefit to someone of having no warrents vs having them. Now given how the FISA rules are written, I have trouble seeing what that is, and I also have trouble believing you just support it for the hell of it. So what's your reason?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

What does scratching the warrent give us? You guys seem really in favor of it, but are unable to provide any particular reason.

'
Because it isn't going to affect me. I don't care if they are listening; I have nothing to hide. Do you?

Also irrelevant. Are you going to address the point re. BushCo circumventing the law requiring court approval?