Wash. Post falsely reported that Americans approve of Bush's "wiretapping tactics"
SUMMARY: Washington Post staff writer Shailagh Murray reported, in an article about Sen. Russ Feingold's censure resolution, that Democrats are "wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics." Actually, polls consistently show that most Americans disapprove of the wiretapping tactics the administration has used -- specifically, conducting surveillance without seeking or obtaining a warrant.
In a front-page March 15 article on Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) call to censure President Bush for "authoriz[ing] an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil," Washington Post staff writer Shailagh Murray reported that Feingold's fellow Democrats are "wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics." In fact, polls consistently show that a majority of Americans disapprove of the wiretapping tactics the administration has used -- specifically, conducting surveillance without seeking or obtaining a warrant.
From Murray's March 15 Post article:
GOP leaders who had been reeling from the impact of Republican political scandals, an unpopular war and Bush's mishandling of the port-security issue sensed that Feingold overplayed his hand and denounced the censure resolution as a political stunt by an ambitious lawmaker positioning himself to run for president in 2008. Many Democrats, while sympathetic to Feingold's maneuver, appeared to be distancing themselves from his resolution yesterday, wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics.
In fact, most polls show the opposite. A Quinnipiac University poll conducted February 21-28 found that while 79 percent of "American voters say the government should continue monitoring phone calls or e-mail between suspected terrorists in other countries and people in the U.S.," 55 percent say "that the government should get court orders for this surveillance." A CBS News poll conducted February 22-26 asked respondents: "Regardless of whether you approve of the President authorizing the wiretaps, do you think the President has the legal authority to authorize wiretaps without a court warrant in order to fight terrorism, or doesn't he?" Fifty-one percent said the president does not have the legal authority to do so. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from February 9-12 reported that 50 percent of respondents believed the Bush administration was "wrong" to wiretap "conversations without a court order," while 47 percent said it was "right."
Murray appears to have conflated public approval of spying on suspected terrorists with approval of the means through which the Bush administration has conducted the eavesdropping. Approving of the surveillance and approving of the tactics are two very different things. As the polls show, one can believe the president should conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and at the same time believe that he should obey the law in doing so.
It's disappointing to see that the Democrats can't come together and agree how to respond aggressively and uniformly to this administration's ongoing and flagrant disregard for the law.
It's also frightening that 47% of the public condone the administration's wiretapping without a warrant, especially since that warrant doesn't have to be applied for until 3 days after the tap in question has begun.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Ben Franklin
---"Murray appears to have conflated public approval of spying on suspected terrorists with approval of the means through which the Bush administration has conducted the eavesdropping."---
Precisely. The conflation is no accident. Murray has fallen for the conflating spin of the deceptive Bush's latest PR ploy. A casual observer might be excused for being so gullible and falling for it, but for the disappointingly administration-friendly Washington Post this is appalling.
...is in full spin cycle. Of course, if you ask Americans if the government should wiretap terrorists, most will respond in the affirmative. Conservatives, however, seem to have a problem with Constitutional protections against government intrusion, at least while THEY have control of the government. They also can't seem to grasp the concept that innocent people might be caught up in the sweep. The question they should be asked is, "Would you favor a President Hillary Clinton having the power to wiretap you without a warrant?" I'd like to see the numbers on that one.
The GOP defense has been unveiled. Limbaugh was puking it out today; they accuse the Democrats of wanting to impeach the President who is protecting us against terrorists, therefore Democrats want the terrorists to win.
Only an idiot would believe this.
"Would you favor a President Hillary Clinton having the power to wiretap you without a warrant?"
I'm going to predict you'll see this question used in the 2008 presidential campaign...by the Republicans. Sounds crazy? Wait and see.
CD
Regarding Public Opinion polls on this matter:
Before asking folks the poll question of "approve or disapprove", if instead you were to ask first...
"Do you know what the acronym FISA stands for?"
"Do you know what right it is granted the People by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?"
"Do you understand the process by which surveillance warrants are sought, and issued?"
"Do you understand the '72 hour' provision of the FISA Act?"
...and if you then proceeded to ask only those who answered all of the above in the affirmative, the question of "approve or disapprove", you would then get...
DISAPPROVE in the 90th percentile, if not 100%.
And as for those who had answered in the negative any of the above posed questions, then if you had taken the 3 minutes to answer that question or questions, then from them also you would get responses to the poll question of...
DISAPPROVE in the 90th percentile, if not 100%.
For it is a fact that not only do most of the American People at this time know the information sought in the above posed questions (which therefore means that most of the American People disapprove of Bush's "wiretapping tactics"), but that so also does Sen. Feingold know those things too; he being a qualified expert on the same, as a conscientious member of the Senate Judiciary Committee...
And a conscientious Senator to the People of Wisconsin...
And to the American People...
Which is why of course he has proposed Censure of the President on this matter.
You are right on IF the American People were to answer "yes" to the qualifying questions you pose.
I wish I could believe, for example, that a large per centage of the public knew and understood what FISA is about...I wish I could believe that but I don't.
Now watch the media help their (at least indirectly) employers "Swift Boat" Feingold as a wild-eyed extremist radical.
KC Geezer
....early indications are that a Majority, or very close to a Majority, of Americans are in step with the Censure of Bush. The longer this issue remains in the news, the more America is learning about what Bush actually did......................
And if there is even an Ounce of Truth in the above quote of...
SHAILAGH: Feingold's fellow Democrats are "wary of polls showing that a majority of Americans side with the president on wiretapping tactics."
...then there are many Pounds of Cowardice that those same "fellow Democrats" had need to shed.
Nay, the ratio is more like a Gram to a Metric Ton.
Wiretapping happens all the time. Police agencies have wiretapped criminals for years. Nobody, not even liberals, have batted an eyelash. Why is that? Simple. There's an expectation that warrants were obtained and probable cause established before the wiretap commenced. So, of course Americans would naturally extend this terrorists. The key question is should the president be able to wiretap someone simply on his word without requirement to prove probable cause or without review by another party within the government. I suspect that Americans strongly object to that sort of hubristic trampling of their rights.
when you can watch Hardball and get a "feel" for the facts?
One point that should be made is that, without external supervision (being forced to go and get a warrant) that not only can The Bush Administration wiretap you, so can anybody in the NSA's program.) If they're not being forced to justify their spying to a court, then an NSA shift supervisor can decide to listen in to anyone he or she feels like: a corporate CFO, an ex-wife, Halle Berry...
Ridiculous? Are you going to assume that, having dispensed with those pesky warrants, that George W. has instituted huge new internal controls? Mr. competence?
And anyone who knows the history of svarious flavors of secret police ('cuz that's what this is, folks) could tell you that the mid-level buraucrats were only too eager to use that power the Big Guys handed them for heir own ends.
If they're not being forced to justify their spying to a court, then an NSA shift supervisor can decide to listen in to anyone he or she feels like: a corporate CFO, an ex-wife, Halle Berry.... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You left out: political candidates from opposing parties. Just in case the whole Diebold scheme doesn't work out.
I can see how this may have come about. I'm sure it's a lot of trouble to get a warrant everytime you want to wiretap someone. The operatives maybe just decided that they didn't want to bother, and figured that in the current climate of fear, it would be easier to get forgiveness than permission. Now that they've been caught, Bush has to do what he's told and defend it, to keep the whole lot of them out of jail. I doubt if this was Bush's idea; he's obviously not in charge of anything. He just stands on the X and reads the teleprompter.
Sorry, Nerzog, but I can't see this as a realistic exlpanation. IF, as you suggest, individual agents had screwed up, why make up a lie to defend them? Why wouldn't Bush simply say "We've discovered that some of our intelligence agents were inappropriately wiretapping citizens without properly obtaining a warrant. Those responsible have been removed from duty, and I have made it clear to these agencies that the law is to be followed at all times." Which is what someone who respects the Constitution would do. But no, he comes out and DEFENDS the policy of warrantless wiretapping, which could only mean he approves. Nevermind that he had already assured us that warrants were required for wiretaps . . .
This is the standard comment from an American who sees nothing wrong with unwarranted wire-tapping etc. Besides sounding self-righteous and smg, it is no guarantee that the person won't end up incarcerated, nor will it guarantee the person a get out of jail free card. Enjoying relative freedom as we have makes us quite ignorant to the machinations of creeping tyranny.
- ABC/WaPo poll reported 54% said wiretapping without a warrant is acceptable.
Gallup finds that people think republicans will do a better job against terrorism 45-41
ABC/WaPo finds 52% approve of the presidents efforts against terrorism
ABC/WaPo finds 56% think we're safer since 911
OpinDynamics finds that most support republicans in the war on terror 38-33
CNN/USA Today finds public thinks republicans will do a better job fighting terrorism 45-40
CBS finds 51% support warrantless wiretaps.
Harris poll finds 52% think the Bush administration has done a good job protecting the U.S. from terrorism.
There is a nice list of cherry picked info...just like mmfa's cited poll numbers.
Finally, here is one that is really puzzling...Harris finds that 53% are at least somewhat familiar with the warrantless wiretap issue - 48% know very little or nothing at all...whew!
With the polls you cited, a reporter would have a problematic time with somehow indicating the people are approving of Bush's ILLEGAL wiretapping.
Did I say "a reporter". Sorry, I meant an honest person.
just as corrupted by conservatives as every other institution. I always recognize the probability is high that any given poll has been altered right.
--"Harris poll finds 52% think the Bush administration has done a good job protecting the U.S. from terrorism."--
That's down -dramatically- from 70% two years ago.
No matter where you look, Bush's numbers are sinking--fast. And deservedly so.
War on terrorism is amorphous, its like asking if you like your mother who isnt against fighting terror? The war in Iraq has ZERO to do with fighting terrorism. So on the war in Iraq its clear the American people do NOT support Bushs mad adventure better known as operation Halliburton needs a new parking lot.
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting --
[link to www.commondreams.org]
But one can't even present that response as evidence of a narrow margin of support for Bush without taking into account the very next question in the poll. When asked a question that focuses specifically on whether the administration should be required to get a warrant or not—"Do you think that the Bush Administration should conduct wiretaps of American citizens who are suspected of having ties to terrorists without a court order, or do you think that the Bush Administration should be required to get a court order before conducting these wiretaps?"—41 chose "without a court order" and 53 percent said "with a court order."
Only 3 percent and 2 percent of respondents, respectively, answered "unsure" to these questions—suggesting that relatively few people "aren't really paying attention." As for the assertion that Americans "don't care" about the issue, when NBC asked, "How concerned are you that the Bush administration's use of these kinds of wiretaps could be misused to violate people's privacy?" 31 percent said "very concerned" and another 25 percent said "quite concerned"—for a total of 56 percent. Only 21 percent said they were "not at all concerned." By comparison, 48 percent were "very worried" or "fairly worried" that "the United States will experience another major terrorist attack."
The idea that the American people are perfectly willing to give up their fourth amendment is questionable at best
Its amazing how the government has been able to do so much under the guise of national security!
This rather reminds me of how those who oppose illegal immigration are accused of opposing immigration per se, and are frustrated that the obvious distinction is not made.
Those of us who view the so called "terrorist surveillance program" as a dangerous power grab are similarly frustrated.
What part of the word "illegal" does the Washington Post not understand?
As easy as it would have been......and in the name of actually doing something "RIGHT" for a change.....
The Bush regime (I call them this because if they were an "administration" they would be at least trying to act like they care about "US"!) could have simply changed the FISA Act 1978 from 72 hours....to say seven days? perhaps a month? I'm pretty dam sure that few would have objected to this......
But no! Instead they create a 'law' (USAPATRIOT Act) that only allows for the government to usurp power over its populas and aids in only allowing the 'terrorists' to win.......by diminishing our civil liberties! Way to go John Ashcroft!
I assure you that few if any terrorists want to 'rule' the world (as these DC clowns want you to believe) as much as they want America to not exist........well......America may still be here, but America isn't as 'free' as she once was! Thanks to that wonderful law: USAPATRIOT Act!
Hence "the terrorists are beginning to win"
This Bush regime is only interested in three things:
PROFIT......GREED.....and.....POWER!!
If they were in it to truely 'protect us' as they claim:
Why all the secrecy? A simple change in the timetable of the FISA law would have done wonders to still protect us while keeping the Constitution from being turned into toilet paper!
What do they have to hide as it pertains to the circumventing of the FISA court? No-bid contracts, Cheney secret meetings
Not wanting to get to the bottom of 9/11? (Bush opposed furiously the 9/11 Commission.....why?) What ever did happen to Flight77?
The sad part about this post is that there are going to be some that may read this and presume it to be a 'rant'......and that my friends is one reason of many why we are in trouble in this great nation!
of taking positions that may offend any portion of the group making up the 64 percent that think Bush is doing a bad job, but are probably glad Feingold is taking that position to appease those of us who are incensed at the elimination of pre-warrant review of applications for warrants by a relatively independent judiciary with life tenure. The whole mission is to not rock the boat until the election. That was what Nader understood but rejected: that as bad as things might be with entrenched politicians from either party, the moral fabric of the nation would be dismantled by the neocons he helped put in office. Now the Dems are hopeful that some of the order that was established during Clinton's time can be restored. Individually, each of them is even more hopeful of simply remaining in office and being able to be in the majority on fat cow committees, but some good will come from that for those who most need it.
We are wasting our time attacking President Bush on the subject of surveilling potential terrorists: Do your own survey, and you'll find that regular Americans almost universally approve of going after suspected terrorists in every way possible. Of course, surveillance must be limited to those who are shown to be in touch with the enemy.
All these polls that claim to have a margin of error +/- 3.5% or whatever... Polls taken within days of each other... with virtually the same questions... get results that fail to fall within the margin of error of these other polls. I think these error margins are bogus. The tone of voice the pollster uses (for telephone polls) can affect the anwer. I'm hoping, however, that public discontent over the abuses of this administration will be clear as a bell come Nov 2006.