| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
New poll finds support for warrantless wiretaps
The usual suspects will spin this into a negative for Bush but a new NYT/CBS News poll shows 53% of Americans support warrantless wiretaps when used to fight terrorism:
Americans are willing to tolerate eavesdropping without warrants to fight terrorism, but are concerned that the aggressive antiterrorism programs championed by the Bush administration are encroaching on civil liberties, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
In a sign that public opinion about the trade-offs between national security and individual rights is nuanced and remains highly unresolved, responses to questions about the administration’s eavesdropping program varied significantly depending on how the questions were worded, underlining the importance of the effort by the White House this week to define the issue on its terms.
The poll, conducted as President Bush defended his surveillance program in the face of criticism from Democrats and some Republicans that it is illegal, found that Americans were willing to give the administration some latitude for its surveillance program if they believed it was intended to protect them. Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants “in order to reduce the threat of terrorism.”
The results suggest that Americans’ view of the program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.
In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at “Americans that the government is suspicious of;” they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at “ordinary Americans.”
I’m sure the results of this poll alarmed the editorial staff at the NYT, who recently pushed forth the belief that the NSA wiretapping “scandal” was worse than the WWII Japanese internment camps. I’m sure the rest of the war underminers won’t be pleased to hear this, either, because if the President and his administration continue to stay on the offensive with respect to this issue, it’ll be a ‘dog that won’t hunt’ in the coming elections. Which is what all this is about to them, anyway – not ‘national security’, as they want you to believe.
Related Toldjah So posts on the NSA wiretapping “scandal”:
- Turning their backs on the truth
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
- Whistleblower or leaker?
- Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
RSS feed for comments on this post.
77 Responses to “New poll finds support for warrantless wiretaps”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
- Hull said: If that is the case, then I do not feel comfortable giving up my liberties because there is no guarantee that they will ever be returned.
- I have seen this groundless fear meme put forth by every Liberal writing on the blogosphere. Time after time, posters have asked simply for a single, thats “one”, instance of a documented case where any American can show any of his liberties have been violated by the espionage countermeasures presently being used.
- They cannot because it doesn’t exist.
- But still the Liberals expect people to listen to these endless hypothetical mind games, designed for one purpose. To try to give them a framework in which to argue. It was nonsense when it started, its nonsense now, and it will still be nonsense in the future.
- Bang
PCD, I didn’t go the extra step of saying that Clinton’s rebuke by Congress proves that eavesdropping violates the law. I maintain that the issue needs to be examined by Congress and/or Courts.
Bang, you inabilty to articulate makes it difficult to address your comments. You listed a bunch of issues that Bush and his administration are still dealing with. The Plame affair is not a conspiracy as Scooter Libby will be the first to tell you. Most of the issues you raised are not settled, so I’m not really sure what you were trying to say.
Severian, if the NSA eavesdropping issue is an overreaction, so be it. You raise a good point that the laws are playing cathup to the reality of the day. But, if that is the case then these issues need to be discussed and debated. You think the eavesdropping issue is an overreaction, the Congressional Research Service disagrees. Let’s have the issue addressed by Congress and the Courts so that we have some firm foundation on which to stand in the future.
If Congress and the Courts agree that eavesdropping is not a violation of the law, then we’ll all have a better sense of what the boundaries of our liberties are today.
To short circuit the argument by saying “we’re at war, we don’t have time to weigh these issues” smacks of dictatorship.
Holy Cow!
You folks are going off.
So what’s wrong with fighting for liberty at home or abroad?
Should we fight abroad for the liberties of other non-US citizens while our own liberties at home are being taken away one by one?
Should the President have the authority to take away liberty from US citizens without due process or probable cause?
What exactly is unreasonable under the law?
Why does probable cause not apply to US citizens any longer?
Amendment IV – Search and seizure
“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.”
The wording is clear as a bell.
Although I certainly see and support communication intercepts. We all know that that whole only “International” business absolutely untrue.
And a strong case can certainly be argued that the President although acting in his role to protect Americans may have breached the constitution in those efforts.
It’s now official. We have no fourth amendment rights any longer with regards to any thing that may be deemed even remotely in the interest of national security.
Which constitutional ammendment will we lose next? Place your bets.
$100 buck says the fifth is the next to go in the toilet. It’s already halfway there.
Hull,
1) Yes Clinton is relevant as he did the same thing as Bush and was not called on the carpet for taking any your liberties away. Since this happened during the previous administration it set a precedents even when we were not at war. There was not mention of Carter so why do you bring it up?
2) There is no conspiracy but there is bias in the media and that has been proven just compare the number of stories that cover the bad news out of Iraq to the number of stories that cover the good things we are doing there. The same bias hold true for politics.
3) Democrats aren’t out to get the President how about the ones calling for impeachment, calling him a liar, a terrorist, went to war for oil and let’s not forget “stupid”. Pull your head out of the sand.
4) Eavesdropping has been going on since FDR but now it’s a big deal and maybe the NSA should have to get a warrant 72 hours after the wiretap. The thing is the terrorist don’t use the same phone and if taping into a call from out of the country could save American lives is it not worth it?
5) How come whistleblowers are called “Patriots” in the NYT when it’s against a conservative and “Whistleblowers” when it’s on liberals? No bias in the media please.
6) Unfortunately the terrorist are not congregated in one country so how can you declare War on an organization that is in several countries? I think you have forgotten that the United States was attacked first on our own soil by terrorist in the name of that peace loving Muslim religion.
“To short circuit the argument by saying “we’re at war, we don’t have time to weigh these issues” smacks of dictatorship.”
- And to immediately “assume” that our duly elected President is intentionally breaking the law, would of course in your Liberal world, not “smack” of obsessive paranoia, or partisan driven perfidity. Of course not.
- Produce a single case of broached liberties, and perhaps I’ll take your “sky is falling” anxieties serious.
- Quite aside from your veiled Adhominems and snide remarks pertaining to my posts, its more telling when you ignore the counters to your arguments by the usual trick of “can’t understand”, and sliding off into different areas when you’re losing the battle.
- Bang
Bang Barked: “a single, thats “one”, instance of a documented case where any American can show any of his liberties have been violated by the espionage countermeasures presently being used.”
José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) of Puerto Rican descent, is accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in May 2002 and detained without charge for more than three years in a South Carolina military prison under orders of President George W. Bush.
On December 18, 2003, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to designate a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil an “illegal enemy combatant” without clear congressional authorization
While on September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges, the Bush Administation has gone to the trouble of formally indicting Padilla on or around November 22, 2005.
So, here’s one instance of a U.S. citizen’s liberties being violated by the espionage countermeasures presently being used.
Is Padilla a good guy? No. But what does that make us when we violate his rights?
Oy.
Bang says ” And to immediately “assume” that our duly elected President is intentionally breaking the law, would of course in your Liberal world, not “smack” of obsessive paranoia, or partisan driven perfidity. Of course not”
Intentionally breaking the law is not the issue. I didn’t say that Bush has some evil plan to do whatever. Intent is beside the point.
I said that many people think he broke the law. Did he do it on purpose? I don’t know.
Did he break the law? That’s for Congress and the Courts to decide.
- Again you tack off into another area. Sometimes its amusing to watch a Liberal tap dance around issues he knows he can’t win.
- Tell you what. You and the rest of your Socialist buds go in front of the American people and tell them all of the good “reasons” you want to find ways to hobble the President in meeting his Constitutional duties in the WOT. I would really welcome that and enjoy watching the publics reaction.
- Bang
Sorry I should have added on the Padilla account, the September 9, 2005 three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days
Hull, in your responses you have the misbegotten notinn that the President is SUBORDINATE to Congress or the Courts or Both. He is not, and was not meant to be by the Founding Fathers or by the WRITTEN Constitution.
Bang I have no idea what you are talking about. What issue did you present that I didn’t address?
You listed a bunch of issues that Bush and his administration are still dealing with; I explained why many of the things you listed were ongoing investigations and as such not “conspiracies”
You asked for ONE instance where a US citizen’s rights were violated under our current espionage countermeasures. I gave you ONE instance, but I could list others.
You’re talking nonsense to make it appear that you point is stronger.
No, PCD, but your arguments express the notion that the Presidency or Executive is SUPERIOR to the Judiciary or Congress. That is not the case.
You say tomato . . .
“andrew, the President. This is a war, not a Police matter.”
And that’s your side of the argument. On my side is that its not just police matters that a neutral magistrate decides, and that there isn’t, in this case, a fine line between police work and war.
- No Hull …. its more like your opponent says “Tomato” and you respond with “alligator”.
- My statement was reffering to the topic at hand. Namely “eavesdropping on innocent Americans”, as the Liberals insist on mischaracterizing the NSA program of “counter-espionage spying on enemy, and suspected enemy combatants”, the true nature of the process.
- You cannot show a single instance, so you veer off into an entirely different area. No cigar, as your philandering darling Clinton might say.
No Cigar, Hull, You refuse to accept the reality the Executive Branch is a CO-EQUAL branch of the government as you demand CONGRESS or the JUDICIAL branches are superior to the Executiive.
Not tomato or tomatoe, but just a Lib, you, tapdancing.
Andrew – thats the whole point your side tries to hide behind. Certainly espionage, sabotage, sedition, any of this sort of activity can be called criminal in nature. But to then assert its a domestic criminal matter is just silly. The left hates war so much they refuse to deal or accept the realities your enemies force upon you. Of course if the left can get any traction with the “law enforcement” meme, then the next thing will be; “Well if its just criminal then there is no WOT”. Pitifully transparent. That was the same scam Clinton ran with so he could avoid really dealing with it, and you see what THAT got us. Give me a break.
- Actually the President, and our government in general has been very understated, and acted with overly much precaution in the WOT.
- If Bush had wanted too, he’d have been within his Constitutional rights to declare Marshall law when we were attacked on 9/11. If you think you’re worried now, you can’t imagine what that would be like. Curfews, travel restrictions. all sorts or “real” liberty limits, instead of these trumped up false ideas you’re putting forth.
- Bang
andrew, you are flat dead wrong. See my previous post to Hull.
- PCD – the only place in government right now that the Dems have any influence is in the Congress. So of course they’d try to extend congressional powers to limit the President. They can’t win at the ballot box, so in the same theme as what they’ve done in the past, packing the SCOTUS with Liberal activist judges to legislate from the bench for their pet unpopular socialist ideas, they seek to somehow change the seperation and balance of power. Won’t work of course, but its all they’ve got, like Hulls sudden “not understanding” when the other side has the temerity to say it like it is. Sort of: “Me no understand Jane”….”Well its like this….You Tarzan, Me Jane, no Cheetah…. *snort*
Bang, when a Lib says that they don’t understand…, what they are saying is that I don’t accept…, and that they won’t accept… no matter what.
PCD
What wrong with being a Libertarian?
GBA, you are no libertarian. A LIBERAL, yes, a Libertarian, no.
Whatever PCD.
I was not aware that you were omnicient.
Put the pipe down pal.
Okay a couple of things here.
1. The issue of exit strategy. Tell what the exit strategy for WWII was. The answer is the exit strategy is to win by defeating your enemy by either totally destroying them or they surrender. End of the exit strategy question.
2. What does Bill Clinton have to do with warrentless wire taps. This is what he has to do with it, he used warrentless wire taps and warrentless searches on spy Aldrich Ames who was caught spying for Russia. Why wasn’t he accused of violating the law? Two reasons, one, until now, not many knew about it. Two, because it was the right thing to do to stop the damage Ames was doing to the country.
3. Warrentless wire taps. First, unless you have some evidence that noone esle has, no American citizens’ rights have been violated. Wire traps are NOT being conducted on Americans talking to Americans. The wire taps are being conducted on calls from known or suspected terrorists from outside the US to numbers/persons inside the US. This falls under intelligence gathering. Article II of the Constitution and the vote in Congress give the President the power. It is not Bush’s fault if Democrats vote to give autorization on actions they do not read or understand. If you say “how do we know if he has broken the law or not” then you have to say that about every president that has held the office.
The only crime that has been committed here is the crime the person who revealed the program committed. This is absolutely a matter of national security. The terrorists do not stop plotting because we are no longer able to eavesdrop on their phone calls. The reason we can no longer eavesdrop is because since they now know, they have stopped calling and are using another means to communicate. The revealing of this program and the Democrats using it as a political weapon have now made us less safe.
4. The question of Iraq. The answer to the question is, NO, Iraq did not attack us!!! But, neither did Germany, what it wrong to declare war on Germany? Saddam was a danger to the region and the world. He could not stike the US directly, but he could give weapons (WMDs) to terrorist organizations that could bring them into the US.
5. Teorrorists. This is a war and POWs/enemy combatants do NOT fall under DUE PROCESS of the LAW. POWs fall under the Geneva Conventions. Enemy Combatants do NOT. Why, because they do not fight for a state (hence stateless) nor do they wear the uniform of a state. Terrorist organizations are NOT signatories of the Geneva Conventions, therefore they are not required to follow them. Why should we give them rights under the Geneva Conventions if they have not signed them and do not give our soldiers the rights?
People don’t seem to understand that the Geneva Conventions aren’t all carrot, there’s a stick in there too. As in, if you don’t sign the convention, and if you don’t abide by the rules of war and treat your prisoners by the rules of the Geneva Convention, then don’t expect to receive good treatment. Enemy combatants, under the GC, may be summarily executed when caught, if they are not wearing the uniform of a military organization. We executed German spies we captured in both the US and Europe in WWII. That’s, personally, what I’d like to see happen to most of these enemy combatants, summary execution. Regardless of what the hand wringing liberals say, it’s legal under the GC. We afford these animals more rights and priviledges than they deserve.
Bang, I moved your comment to this thread. –ST
Write more US Vet !!!!!
GBA, Libertarians are usually the ones with pipes and a stash, not ultra conservatives.