Another excellent post, eriposte. Thanks.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the circle of people under surveillance extends outward from just the terrorists, that is to say, that those being spyed upon include intermediate people who have contacts with terrorists and the Americans with which this latter group of people deal with. Essentially what I mean is that Americans being spyed upon may not even be in contact with known terrorists. And I don't know how many other intervening levels may exist between the Americans and the known terrorists.
Consequently, a possible poll question would be
"Do you believe that it is improper to spy on Americans who have no direct dealing with known terrorists?"
Posted by Herman at February 4, 2006 06:22 PMeriposte, again - thanks. What's sad is that this has to be dissected and spelled out and still, some folks will not be dissuaded from their talking points.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 4, 2006 06:30 PMSo, if somebody is calling Grandma in Minnesota, folks don't think the government should listen in. But if somebody is calling the Al Qaeda hotline in the mountains of Pakistan, folks are okay with the government listening in.
Gotcha.
Remember back in 1776, the US government didn't have the power to tax or to regulate, either.
We've come a long way, baby.
Posted by muckdog at February 4, 2006 06:37 PMHere's the bottom line:
If the question is framed as "Do you support Bush spying on Americans" then the reposnse is below 50%.
If the question is framed "Do you support Bush spying on Americans who are talking to Al-Qaeda operatives outside the US" the reponse is above 50%.
The real issue is whether Amercians BELIEVE Bush is spying on regular Joe Blow. I doubt the majority do.
But I am encouraged that you guys keep harping on this issue. Please keep it up for 10 more months.
And BTW, I can't wait for the hearings on all this to start. There is going to be some Democrats in a lot of legal trouble over leaking national security secrets and it may very well be devastating to your party when it come to light. You guys are completely mis-reading Bush defense of the program as a sign of weakness on his part. It is not. It is a sign of a President who is more than willing to fight liberals on the issue and he knows he will win.
Posted by David at February 4, 2006 08:35 PMThe issue seems to boil down to whether or not the person being polled believes that Bush is ONLY spying on a terrorist or terrorist supporter. Why anybody would believe that is a mystery.
The point that people lose sight of is this - if the people to be spied-upon were really terrorists, the FISA court would grant a warrent in a heartbeat ... even retroactively. (rhetorical question: Why is that not good enough for Bush?)
David,
You got the conclusions partly wrong, but one thing that clearly differentiates people like you from people like us on this blog is that we are willing to put the country's interests above the interest of the party. Elections are less important than ensuring that no one is above the law. Bush Republicans believe that criminality is great and that supporters should make their name shilling for criminals.
Unlike Bush Republicans, Democrats (and most independents) do not believe that criminals should be crowned King and worshipped.
Posted by eriposte at February 4, 2006 09:12 PMWould David trust Bill Clinton to "only spy on the BAD guys?" I would hope that he would ask for some verification. But then, this program does mesh well with the "no paper trail left behind" voting machines.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 4, 2006 10:09 PMOf course spying on Americans is illegal without a FISA warrant. I cannot believe we are even having this conversation (War or no war), but I know one thing for damn sure, if I were a politician right now, I would be very very afraid. Part of the Package of Corruption brought to us via Bush&Co. is blackmail.
Posted by Judith at February 5, 2006 05:53 AMAs you are building the case for phony evidence leading us into the Iraq war, interesting to review early attempts--10/2001--to tie the anthrax attack to Iraq, via the same suspect Czech route.
Report: Iraq Behind Anthrax Attacks
NewsMax.com Wires
Monday, Oct. 15, 2001
Britain's Guardian newspaper reported Sunday that American investigators probing anthrax outbreaks in Florida and New York believe they have all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack -- and have named Iraq as the prime suspect as the source of the deadly spores.
The Guardian notes that in liquid form, anthrax is useless - droplets would fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air to be breathed by victims.
"Making powder needs repeated washings in huge centrifuges, followed by intensive drying, which requires sealed environments. The technology would cost millions."
The London paper quoting CIA sources as saying that "Iraq has the technology and supplies of anthrax suitable for terrorist use."
One CIA source told the paper: "They aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan. This is prima facie evidence of the involvement of a state intelligence agency. Maybe Iran has the capability. But it doesn't look likely politically. That leaves Iraq."
American officials have already revealed that anthrax bacteria used in the recent attacks is the "Ames strain" of anthrax originally cultivated at Iowa State University in the 1950s. Iraq is believed to have that strain.
Other sources indicate that al Qaeda members picked up vials of anthrax powder in the Czech Republic.
CIA sources believe that terrorist ring leader Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials twice in Prague, with the last meeting this past spring.
Already there are indications that Iraq may be part of the new war's "second phase." The first phase is under way: Closing down Taliban and al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.
The Guardian reports that former CIA Director Jim Woolsey has recently visited London on behalf of the U.S. Defense Department to "firm up" other evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Posted by egregious at February 5, 2006 06:05 AM"You got the conclusions partly wrong, but one thing that clearly differentiates people like you from people like us on this blog is that we are willing to put the country's interests above the interest of the party."
IF that were true, then the leaders of your party would articulate an alternative plan instead of focusing soley on attacking Bush. For you to say with a straight face that your party is putting the country first is laughable when reading the comments of the bloggers here.
Posted by David at February 5, 2006 09:07 AMyes, it's all the Democrat's fault--they didn't cheat enough to steal the elections in 2000 and 2004, so they have allowed the Republicans to game the system and control the Presidency, Senate, K Street, and the Judicial branch, and for King George to spend more money and make more recess appointments than any President in our history.
You know what we've got to do over here on the left? We've got to quit pretending that polls always support our positions. The fact that a slim majority of Americans with land-line telephones believes that Bush should not spy on Americans unless someone thinks they might talk to terrorists is not exactly encouraging. Nearly half approved of government wiretaps even if terrorism was not mentioned, either not knowing or not caring that such action is illegal, despite the fact that mainstream newspapers have been publishing mainstream claims of the program's illegality.
Fraud aside, over 40 million Americans voted for Bush in 2004. Hell, 51% of Americans don't even believe in evolution. Yes, we've got to hold government officials responsible for their crimes, but we've also got some SERIOUS culture-changing work to do in this country.