A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if the calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.
Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mail messages of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.
Agreeing with the White House, about 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.
According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.
Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.
scottyz said:http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/386167.html
The last poll I saw on the subject didn't asked the specific question about spying without warrants. This one seems to ask that question.
Stinger said:And the demographics are skewed 52 - 40 Democrats over Republican. What would you expect?
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr060107-2topline.pdf&id=2929
danarhea said:I would say this poll takes precedence. Actually, not a poll, but the results of an analysis by the non-partisan [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Congressional Research Service. In short, it says that Bush is on questionable and shaky legal ground.
Article is here.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
Wow, the department accused of wrong doing says that the legal group who says their justification is shaky at best is wrong.Stinger said:The Justice Deparment as already issued a statement that the legal reasoning this "Research" group is flawed and the actual court cases supporting the Adminsitration have been posted many times over here. Of course it is not surprising since the congress is attempting a power grab with this phoney issue.
BTW did I ask if that is an old Jaguar Bass in the avitar?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha :rofl YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE A POLL!scottyz said:http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/386167.html
The last poll I saw on the subject didn't asked the specific question about spying without warrants. This one seems to ask that question.
stsburns said:Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha :rofl YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE A POLL!
Spying needs appoval! That's a new one! Well DO I NEED YOUR PERMISSION TO NEOTRACE YOU!? :rofl
Just kidding but you get the point! :mrgreen:
6. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?
Investigate threats: 65%
Respect privacy: 32%
No opinion: 3%
7. In investigating terrorism, do you think federal agencies are or are not intruding on some Americans' privacy rights?
Are: 64%
Are not: 32%
No opinion: 4%
8. (IF FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE INTRUDING, Q7) Do you think those intrusions are justified or not justified?
Justified: 49%
Not justified: 46%
No opinion: 5%
oldreliable67 said:Another poll...
This ABC News/Washington Post poll is demographically balanced, with 31% Dems and 30% Repubs, so the results shouldn't be skewed. Key data:
This poll suggests that approx two-thirds of Americans believe that no "unjustified" intrusions into privacy rights are taking place.
Calm2Chaos said:Was clintons legal base for warrantless searches on shaky ground?
aps said:Please provide evidence that Clinton conducted warrantless searches. I believe your question is based upon a republican talking point.
Your question is as ridiculous as Scott Peterson saying, "Was Mark Hacking's murder of his wife and unborn child a crime?"
Calm2Chaos said:So your saying that Echelon got warrants for all electronic transmissions that it intercepted?
SouthernDemocrat said:Wow, the department accused of wrong doing says that the legal group who says their justification is shaky at best is wrong.
So basically, the defendant is disagreeing with one of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses.
If the Bush Administration thought they already had the legal justification to wiretap domestically without warrants (all the court cases you mention deal with foreign wiretapping), then why is it that they went to the congressional leaders first to see if they could get FISA law changed, and then, only after they were told that congress would not go for it, they chose to ignore the law?
All congress is saying is that they should have oversight into this program
and that there should be judicial approval for wiretaps.
It seems that you believe the President should be able to act with impunity and without any checks at all to his power.
You do realize that you will be setting precedence for Hillary Clinton assuming she wins in 2008.
Do you want to hand her the power to do as she pleases without judicial approval and without congressional oversight so long as her administration makes the argument that it is in the name of fighting terror? I sure don’t.
I posted this in the other thread on how Bush's bases for conducting warrantless wiretapping is on shakey legal ground. I'll post it here too.
Stinger said:The Justice Department is not accused of doing anything, they simply render the opinion of the Justice Department.
There is no evidence the Congressional Research Group is an expert or more an expert than the courts that have ruled in favor of the Executive Branch or the Justice Departement or the Inspectors General office.
I guess you call it trying to work with congress so that it's laws abide by the constitution.
As I said a power grab by the congress.
These are not within the jurisdiction of the judical branch and it has no authority or expertise in foreign intelligence.
And it seems to me that when some can't make a rational arguement they throw out these silly little blanket statements. Tell you what, I will say what I believe and you can say what you believe and we can go from there.
Are you saying Hillary is too dangerous to be the President?
When it comes to foeign intelligence gathering? Anyone who is elected does and should have that power. If you don't think Hillary is capable of using it properly then I suggest you don't vote for her. And after her dealing with FBI files that might not be a bad idea.
aps said:Stinger, please read this letter from Constitutional law experts. http://balkin.blogspot.com/DOJ.Response.AUMF.final.pdf
This letter debunks the bases upon which the Justice Dept. claims Bush had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. In it, they state, "The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States." They address the Article II argument, the "any means necessary" argument, and the reliance upon the Hamdi decision. Totally debunked.
Hmmm, whose opinion has more weight to it? Stinger's or a group of 14 experts in this area of law? Hmmmmmmmm
"The Supreme Court has never upheld warrantless wiretapping within the United States."
Stinger said:I have already cited from the courts which this groups seems to ignore the basic facts by insisting FISA can usurp the presidents constitutional authority.
From the Deputy AG
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the attorney general.
"It is important to understand," explained the official, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Furthermore, said the deputy AG, the requirements for sending wiretapping requests to a special court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (known as FISA) were not objectionable, provided that the provision "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."
And as the WSJ stated yesterday
"The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.""
And where have they ruled against what Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush did?
aps said:I have no idea and, frankly, I don't care. Using the excuse that other presidents have done it (which I doubt is the case) is a pretty pathetic defense.
Just as I suspected--it's a republican talking point. Yawn.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/the-echelon-myth/
The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
Calm2Chaos said:OMG your screaming liberal web blog says its untrue... well then it completely must be false.... YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml
Guess 60 minutes was wrong
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543318/posts
KCConservative said::2wave: Nice job, Chaos.
Uh, aps, I believe it's your turn.
The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order [emphasis added], let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.
In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:
"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."
NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."
Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."
Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.
The "60 Minutes" report also spotlighted Echelon critic, then-Rep. Bob Barr, who complained that the project as it was being implemented under Clinton "engages in the interception of literally millions of communications involving United States citizens."
oldreliable67 said:
Before the September 11, 2001 attacks and the legislation which followed it, US intelligence agencies were generally prohibited from spying on people inside the US and other western countries' intelligence services generally faced similar restrictions within their own countries. There are allegations, however, that ECHELON and the UKUSA alliance were used to circumvent these restrictions by, for example, having the UK facilities spy on people inside the US and the US facilites spy on people in the UK, with the agencies exchanging data (perhaps even automatically through the ECHELON system without human intervention).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
KROFT: Accountability isn't the only issue that's of interest to Congress. There is growing concern within the intelligence community that encryption and the worldwide move to fiber-optic cables, which Echelon may not be able to penetrate, will erode the NSA's ability to gather the intelligence vital to national security. The agency is looking for more money to develop new technologies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?