Posted on 01/07/2006 9:57:08 AM PST by squidly
A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.
Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Yet 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.
Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.
"We're at war," Bush said during a New Year's Day visit to San Antonio. "And as commander in chief, I've got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. ... It's a vital, necessary program."
According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.
Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.
"Since you are in favor of Warrants for NSA monitoring, I'm very curious to know your opinion on the so called "whistleblower" and if that person may have come from NSA."
I'd consider that extremely unlikely. As for my opinion, anyone entrusted with classified information should never release it, except to the proper authority.
I worked at the NSA in the late 60s. What I did there is classified, and I still follow the rules that were in place at the time.
As for the warrants, in general, there is a reason for the law, and that reason is to prevent information from being used in an illegal way. I have no problem whatever with monitoring of communications between US Citizens and terrorists. I think it should be done. I also think it should be done in accordance with the laws in effect. If those laws are inadequate, then new ones should be written.
COMINT is something that has a very narrow authorized audience, and that's as it should be.
And 12 miners are alive according to PravdABDNC! Stinking lying polls. Wonder if Churchill worried about the polls??
Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops
<< squidly
A dumb American poll as per usual. >>
Nope.
A dumb un-and-anti-American [Pushed] poll as per usual.
Poll: (Insert what Liberals want to happen here)
Bravo! Well Done!
Of course this poll included the part about snooping on "Americans" talking to foreign terrorist. sarc
Because if it said between Americans of course people would say needs warrants.
Well, sacrifice is a part of life.
If my talents are needed, then I must step up to task.
Do, or do not.
There is no try.
any link to the polling data on this poll? thanks
Wow, a lot of water has probably gone under the NSA "bridge" since you were in it 35 years ago. I might not be too far off in questioning your knowledge of the current monitoring capabilities and their applications. So, maybe I will stand by my original statement, "you don't understand" at least in the current context. Of course, I probably don't either, but I'm willing to trust those leaders in a position to know.
Here are the demographics for the 99 people they asked for this poll (and 99 is a very small number for polling purposes I'm telling you):
2a. Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent or none of these?
2b. Do you lean strongly or only moderately toward the Democratic Party?
2c. Do you lean strongly or only moderately toward the Republican Party?
2d. Do your beliefs tend to lean more toward the Democrats or the Republicans?
REGISTERED
VOTERS
Strongly Republican .......................... 13
Moderately Republican ..................... 27
Definitely Independent/neither........... 8
Moderately Democrat........................ 32
Strongly Democrat ............................ 20
Refused/not sure............................. -
Total Republican ............................ 40
Total Democrat ............................... 52
Poll results:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/act_hit_cntr.cfm?id=2929&Region=us&PDF_name=mr060107-2topline.pdf
"Wow, a lot of water has probably gone under the NSA "bridge" since you were in it 35 years ago. I might not be too far off in questioning your knowledge of the current monitoring capabilities and their applications."
No doubt much has improved vis-a-vis capabilities. I can project pretty well, based on my own knowledge and what I have gathered elsewhere.
Pretty much anything I could imagine is in place, I'm sure.
"but I'm willing to trust those leaders in a position to know."
For the most part, so am I...at least right now. Trouble is that the customers for what is generated changes from time to time. Some customers are more reliable than others.
The information generated and even the knowledge that the information generated is something that must be guarded closely. Already, too much information is known in this instance.
This is why the NSA, and some other agencies, are so secretive. At one time, the mere fact of the NSA's existence was not known very widely.
Even now, few know much about it, tell-all books notwithstanding. Most of them are wrong in most areas, anyhow.
Nope. My information is not at all up-to-date, and I like it that way just fine. I don't want to know anything more than I already know. However, I do not want the media to know anything at all about it, other than the fact that the NSA exists and is in the information gathering business.
Whoever leaked this stuff should be pilloried, and probably will be, although it will not be in a public forum, I'm sure. The intelligence community does not generally participate in public hearings or court cases in any real way. Too much is at stake.
My point is that the leaker may not be known to the general public, ever. I hope not.
Yes. See Post 47 above.
Most Americans watch too much TV and are totally ignorant of historical precedent. Their opinions mean nothing.
Given that you didn't quote any part of the document, you've yet to make a point about the Constitution.
Kind of odd that you'd consider an offhand statement at the convention that was never meant to be published, to trump the 4th amendment as well as a specific act of Congress.
It would seem to me that if the president has the right to Ignore the FISA Court and our Fourth Amendment rights he may also decide to repeal our second amendment rights. Additionally I don't think that is what he meant when he took his oath of office to support and defend the constitution.
Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong.
As one of the few people on FreeRepublic who supports the Fourth amendment, I find these poll results heartening. Currently, FISA allows warrants to be obtained after eavesdropping, but the poll indicates that a majority want the even stronger protection of requiring the warrant beforehand. I wouldn't go that far, but it's good to know the people aren't ready to chuck out the Constitution so easily.
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.