Mitchell mischaracterized NSA surveillance program, polling
SUMMARY: NBC's Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program understates its scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split.
During the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell claimed that recent polls on President Bush's authorization of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA) showed "little public outcry over the program, especially when [the administration] tell[s] people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda." What Mitchell did not note is that the administration's characterization of the program as limited to Al Qaeda communications significantly understates its reported scope. Moreover, recent polling shows that support for the program is at best split, even when respondents are asked whether they approve or disapprove of the program based on the administration's limited and disputed characterization. The most recent polls -- released before Mitchell's statement -- show that 51 percent of Americans do not approve of the program. In addition, a January 23 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the wiretapping authorization, while 39 percent disagree.
Reporting on the Bush administration's effort, over the past week, to defend the NSA program, Mitchell said: "Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda."
However, according to The New York Times' initial report and its subsequent reporting on the surveillance program, government sources tell quite a different story from the one suggested by the administration and advanced by Mitchell, namely that the program involves only the surveillance of "those who talk to Al Qaeda" and that only international calls are monitored.
Contrary to the administration's characterization of the program as monitoring only international calls, a December 21 Times article reported that the NSA program captured "purely domestic" calls. Further, a January 17 Times report quoted FBI officials saying that the NSA program produced a high volume of leads but the vast majority led to individuals within the United States who had no connection to terrorism.
Moreover, surveillance is reportedly far from limited to "those who talk to Al Qaeda." Far from the certainty implied by Mitchell's statement that only those who are actually "talk[ing] to Al Qaeda" are surveillance targets, President Bush and White House spokesman Scott McClellan have acknowledged that all the NSA requires is that it "reasonably suspect" someone of links to Al Qaeda to have that person's communications intercepted.
While no national polls have yet presented a description of the program broad enough to encompass what has been reported to be its scope -- none have asked respondents whether they support the surveillance of persons without proven links to Al Qaeda within the United States without first obtaining a warrant required by law -- public opinion has been split and is turning increasingly negative. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll presented the administration's limited characterization of the program as monitoring strictly international calls that involved individuals suspected of terrorism. Nevertheless, the poll found that 51 percent of respondents said that the Bush administration was wrong to "wiretap[ ] telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so." The poll also found that 58 percent support appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Because Mitchell's comments were made before the releases of the January 27 New York Times/CBS News and Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg polls, we have not cited them in the analysis of her comments, but they are consistent with our conclusions that polling shows Americans to be split on the question, with changes in approval percentages very much a function of the wording of questions.
From the January 25 edition of NBC's Nightly News, which featured Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:
MITCHELL: Democrats think their best argument is that the program is a power grab by the president and will ultimately prove to be unpopular. Despite the political furor, the White House is encouraged by recent polls, showing little public outcry over the program, especially when they tell people it is limited only to those who talk to Al Qaeda.
KOHUT [clip]: The public is concerned about civil liberties but what they tell us in the polls is they're more concerned about whether the government is doing enough to -- to protect it from another terrorist attack.
MITCHELL: And tonight the president pledged to reauthorize the eavesdropping for as long as terrorists remain a threat. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.
From the December 21 New York Times article:
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact ''international.''
From the January 17 New York Times article:
More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret eavesdropping program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
"We'd chase a number, find it's a school teacher with no indication they've ever been involved in international terrorism - case closed," said one former FBI official, who was aware of the program and the data it generated for the bureau. "After you get a thousand numbers and not one is turning up anything, you get some frustration."
I've talked to some of my Republican friends, and they don't seem to be all that worried about Constitutional protections. After all, they argue, if you don't have anything to hide, why worry? Just another example of the Conservative mind's inability to grapple with subtlety and complexity. I actually had one complain about his tax money going to pay for public defenders, even though that right is guaranteed in the Constitution. The idea that any one of them could ever be falsely accused of a crime is simply beyond their comprehension or limited imagination.
How do you fight such profound ignorance and self-centered hubris?
Generally, Conservatives can't imagine themselves ever in need of Constitutional protections against the Justice System, but they have no trouble imagining themselves rich and benefitting from Bush's tax cuts...go figure.
I have had the same arguments with republicans about lawyers, unions, health care, etc. They are strict with regards to the constitution when it is conveniant. I'am starting to believe that republicans have low self esteem, since they argue things that do not benefit them for people who do not care about them. Many republicans I know have no health care, belong to unions, do not make enough to be considered for benefial tax cuts, would sue if there was a payday waiting with the help of a trial lawyer, do not own a business, do not go to church on a regular basis, and talk about "fiscal responsibility" while republicans run up the deficit. That is why i say they have low self esteem, they seem to argue for those in a way better economic situation, almost in a way to feel like they are elite or part of the "well off" gang. Others just take a gang mentality and regardless of what they know to be right or wrong blindly follow their "gang" because they want bragging rights. A small number of them are just dumb. These are the same people who critisize welfare recipients as all "stealing money" but then come to reunions and brag about cheating on their taxes. go figure.
Given the opportunity to wiretap without a warrant, what would a Republican likely DO?
Do you suppose they might wiretap Monica Lewinsky? Or might Nixon listen in to Democrat Headquarters conversations? Maybe a bug in Daniel Elsberg's psychiatrist's office?
Do you suppose Lee Atwater might have had a "wish list" of people to spy on? Or that Karl Rove has big reasons to want to know what people are saying?
"WHEN THEY ARE TOLD IT'S JUST AL QUEDA" is the qualifier, but it's BOGUS. Pollees would assume this was a true statement, "Oh, well, if it's JUST Al Queda...".
If you say, "Your assurance of WHO is being wiretapped would come exclusively from the White House, with no independent or judicial verification." ... what would they say THEN? THIS is the true fact of the case, and the media are purposefully missing the point.
Without the warrant requirement, NOBODY WOULD EVER KNOW who the President decided to listen in on. With Republicans, we can assume they'd be trying to gain political advantage, just like always.
"Your assurance of WHO is being wiretapped would come exclusively from the White House, with no independent or judicial verification."
Exactly, and the more they explain about the program the stranger it seems. Hadley tells us it's targeted and focused, so that is consistent with what FISA's always dealt with - specific warrants for listening to specific people. It's only Al Queda we're listening to - if true, this would make the odds of getting warrants approximately 100%. The secrecy of the program is vital - so you go around the secret court, inviting whistleblowers, and then when the story is public you continue the program. The program is vital to our security - so why risk the validity of any evidence you might gather by skipping the warrant?
I don't know who they were listening to. But if the administration is telling the truth, then the program doesn't make a bit of sense at all. Their description only indicates that they are lying. That's not a Dem v. Repub thing. It's not paranoia. It's just common sense. When the explanation makes no wash at all, the person is almost certainly lying.
My apologies. That should be "doesn't wash". I used the word "sense" too many times and I under-corrected, and the result made no...sense.
Can we please bring back the preview feature? I should have caught it anyway but it sure would help!
Would turn down a warrant to wiretap al Queda? Of course they wouldnt. There would be no reason to bypass FISA if they were only wiretapping al Queda. To believe this you really have to want to be duped
TV news does things like this so often. The footage of Senate Dems is of their Alito comments, not NSA's illegal spying. And Kohut's footage took up an awful lot of airtime. Mitchell should have provided information that challeged admin assertions, and there's plenty of it.
Poll numbers are driven by the information people have. If Andrea's assertion is that polls show people "don't care" about the President's illegal spy program, perhaps that is a reflection on HER and the rest of the corporate conservative cozy media who favor irresponsible entertainment over responsible journalism.
But just as Thomas Paine was able to publish pamphlets back in his day, the truth is out there, here and in other places for people are willing to find it.
Mark Twain said: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
And, I might presume to add, polls.
"Should your phone be tapped by the US Government if you have no ties to Al Queda?"
"Do you believe the President has an obligation to follow the laws written by Congress?"
"Do you believe the FBI should concentrate on solid leads in tracking down Al Queda, or should they just wiretap many US citizens and hope they get lucky?"
"Do you believe the only way to fight Al Queda is to give up your constitutional rights?"
"Do you think President Bush would wiretap US citizens for political advantage?"
"Do you think Dick Cheney would wiretap US citizens for political advantage?"
"Do you trust President Bush to tell the truth?"
"Do you think President Bush can be trusted when he says that only those with Al Queda ties were wiretapped?"
See, it's all in how you phrase it.