This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Posted on 01/23/2006 12:13:30 PM PST by kddid
Democrats who criticize President Bush for using warrant-less wiretaps to elicit information about potential terrorist activity should be aware that the American people strongly support his decision to do so.
Believe it or not, they trust their own government and the president they elected to use the information wisely and for our own protection. The Jan. 11 Fox News poll asked voters whether the president "should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States."
By 58 percent to 36 percent, the answer was "yes."
Indeed, 42 percent of the nation's Democrats agreed that the president should have this power. The poll also tells us that Americans attribute the absence of terrorist attacks over the past 41/2 years to our government's efforts to protect us.
Asked if the fact that there has been no major terror attack since 9/11 was due to "security measures working" or to "no attack having been planned" by terrorists, Americans credited government efforts by 46 percent; 22 percent said no attacks were planned; another 20 percent said both factors contributed.
Other results: Some 61 percent — including a majority of the Democrats — said they'd be willing to surrender some of their own privacy to help prevent terror attacks. Respondents support renewal of the Patriot Act by 57 percent to 31 percent. Even Democrats only oppose renewal by 40-47.
Those who called attention to the NSA policy of warrant-less wiretaps were labeled "traitors" by 50 percent of the voters and "whistleblowers" by only 27 percent. Democrats opted for "traitors" by 42 percent to 34 percent.
In other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one!
These statistics tell us that Democratic politicians are just hurting themselves by raising and dwelling on the wiretap issue. Americans don't fear giving their government the power to monitor conversations between Americans and foreigners even if no warrant sanctions the intrusion — we're more afraid of al-Qaida than of our own elected officials.
No wonder President Bush is willing to let Congress hold hearings about the NSA intercepts and the legal basis that allows them. The more focus this issue gets, the more it helps his administration. This time, liberal bias in the media helps moderates and conservatives — no politician should mind being attacked for doing things that the public approves.
Once again, liberals are misreading the public's heavy doubts about the wisdom of the war in Iraq and our ability to win. These are pragmatic concerns, not an embrace of the left's take on national security. In fact, there is a broad and deep consensus when it comes to homeland security, which any politician defies at the risk of losing support.
This is a ch__ch. What's missing?
Dick Morris is the Ultimate Poll-Monger.
I am of the opinion that if the people to be tapped are actually suspicious individuals, the Feds should have no trouble getting a warrant. I'm actually surprised so many Freepers are supportive of the wiretaps. I really need to hear more details about exactly what was going on before I make up my mind.
I am with you.
However, majority, as the poll shows, is not of our view.
Mr. Franklin would not be pleased.
"should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists whomever they want without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States."
Since there weren't any warrants, we don't know who was "monitored" and who was not. We only have Bush and the NSA's word that they only monitored "suspected terrorists", and I don't trust them that far.
It bothers me too. Without a warrant, we have no way of identifying who those "suspicious individuals" were, or whether or not they were "suspicious" before their private conversations were tapped.
Not knowing anymore then you I will ask is it possible that the monitoring is not directly on individuals within this country but calls from certain areas to the world or to certain areas of the world.
In other words, it is a big net set up to catch anything that enters it. If you don't know who is going to call a certain number, you would not be able to get a warrant before hand.
But I am surprised at your total lack of knowledge of the history of this nation. You must never have heard of WWII or the restriction placed on American citizens during the years of that war.
If I understand you correctly you would rather err on the side of protecting our freedom (from having a phone call monitored) rather then protecting your life.
It is a fine balance, but the risk is great. The terrorist were able to work within our system to bring down the twin towers and kill 3,000 of us.
The threat is still out there. What is your solution to the threat? In this I still support the administrtion.
After you've read CIB-173's post, and now understand the reasons for the administrations actions, I would also add that whatever the Constitution is or isn't, it is certainly not a suicide pact.
Asked if the fact that there has been no major terror attack since 9/11 was due to "security measures working" or to "no attack having been planned" by terrorists, Americans credited government efforts by 46 percent; 22 percent said no attacks were planned; another 20 percent said both factors contributed.
I love that 20% that believe “both factors contributed.”
Therefore, they believe that “no attacks were planned” and government efforts to prevent those attacks that weren’t planned were successful.
I'm not so sure. Look at the way the question in the poll is phrased: whether the president "should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States."
Turn that around to "whether the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of U.S. citizens without getting warrants" and you'll have a different result.
Then, for good measure, ask if they've stopped beating their wife.
 It would be nice if we could keep this issue hot right up until November, but as ignorant as I believe the leaders of the Democratic party are, I really don't think anyone is dense enough to keep beating this drum. If they do, they'll get killed in the elections this fall.
|
The big question is: did they catch anything with it? You know that if they had have caught anybody with this wiretapping they would be holding them up as a "see! see! it worked!". All that we know for certain is that warrantless wiretapping was conducted on an unknown number of unspecified US citizens for unverifiable reasons yielding unknown intelligence of an unspecified nature.
In other words, we know absolutely nothing at all about what was done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.