Comments on: The Left Fights Back…

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » NSA Eavesdropping of Dubious Legality, Says Congressional Research Service

Sat, 07 Jan 2006 23:15:25 +0000

[...] So the Post’s headline, instead of reading, “Report Rebuts Bush on Spying,” should have said, “Report Expresses Uncertainty on Spying.” In related news, I’m sure you recall the Rasmussen Poll recently that got so much attention, and had the left crying foul because it didn’t say the magic word ‘warrantless’. Well, score one for the left – a new AP/Ipsos poll includes the magic word, and it shows a slim majority who oppose the idea of warrantless eavesdropping: 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-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism. [...]

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Skepticism on ‘Warrantless’ Poll Unwarranted?

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 19:32:30 +0000

[...] All kinds of good stuff continues to come out from both sides of the aisle on the Rasmussen poll we’ve discussed previously. Here are a couple of good ones from opposite sides of the aisle:Jeff Goldstein has a lengthy post up examining some of the assumptions behind the questioning of the poll’s wording; Glenn Greenwald finds it to be “[o]ne of the most absurdly formulated polls ever”. [...]

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:53:20 +0000

If Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were right that warrantless searches in foreign intelligence cases derives directly from their constitutional powers as command-in-chief then no legislative actions can influence it. Only an amendment or the supreme court can effect the constitution.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:46:59 +0000

Colin, I agree that it’s not a closed question on the legality of the program. I’ve seen good arguments from both sides…I do feel it SHOULD be legal, though, in limited circumstances, and I want the ‘questionability’ to be addressed legislatively to remove the gray areas…

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:43:19 +0000

Um…When was it decided definitively whether the evasedropping was illegal? I don’t remember the issue being adjuticated. I do remember reading some very persuasive columns on the legality of the NSA’s efforts. I do remember seeing cases cited in support of the evasedropping. Calling it illegal at this point would just be wrong.

On another related subject, I am constantly angered almost to the point of being physically ill by the constant refrences to the NSA in national news stories. It is the most secretive intelligence operation in the United States. We SHOULD NOT know what they are doing. The very fact that the program that we’re talking about is an NSA program that no one should know about is the 800-lb gorilla in the middle of the room no on is talking about.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:22:29 +0000

Fargus, when you think about it, it goes to show that almost all polling that doesn’t ask for set answers with clear questions (such as which of the following candidates will you vote for) is a bit suspect, isn’t it? Wording means so much so often…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:56:12 +0000

Well, the standard right-wing response I’ve seen to polls that they don’t like is to parse the phrasing, call the polls and the pollsters biased, and then ignore it all. Does that strategy only apply on the one side?

By: too many steves

too many steves — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:30:44 +0000

And let’s not forget the context of the WOT because the question is one of balancing rights and security not whether warrantless surveilance is always right or always wrong. Is it okay to do now under these circumstances. I suspect most people would answer ‘yes’.