Posted on 05/12/2006 5:57:25 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
May 12, 2006 Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.
Lending support to the administration's defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.
Indeed, 51 percent approve of the way President Bush is handling the protection of privacy rights, while 47 percent disapprove hardly a robust rating, but one that's far better than his overall job approval, in the low 30s in recent polls.
This doesn't mean privacy intrusions aren't a concern. Nearly half the public, 45 percent, say the government is not doing enough to protect Americans' rights as it investigates terrorism. This concern is far higher than it was in 2002 and 2003, closer to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but slightly down in this poll from its level two months ago.
Despite such concerns, however, the public continues to place a higher priority on terrorism investigations than on privacy intrusions. Sixty-five percent say it's more important for the government to investigate possible threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy, than for it to avoid privacy intrusions if that limits its investigative ability. It was the same in January, although higher still in 2002 and 2003 polls.
The phone-records program, moreover, is not broadly seen as intrusive. Two-thirds of Americans say it wouldn't bother them if the National Security Agency had a record of phone numbers that they had called. A third would be bothered; fewer, about a quarter, say it would bother them a lot.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Here's my source, go whine to them.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr110199.html
Regardless of the accuracy of the quote attributed to Mr. Franklin, the words are true.
No, the words are not true. In fact, the surrender of a bit of your liberty for the sake of public order makes civilization possible. Absent such action we would live in a state of nature with every man's hand raised against every other, and life would be brutish, nasty and short.
I'm satisfied that we are in a state of war. The Senate sanctioned the President's authority to carry out this war and to do what was appropriate to protect national security. As you must know, the Constitution does not *require* a formal declaration of in order for war to be waged. The WWII public was not "made aware" of all steps taken to protect national security, nor should they have been.
President Bush has used his authority appropriately, reasonably, and apparently effectively, as we have not been attacked since 9/11.
"I thought that we didn't believe lying polls, especially from a source such as ABC/WaPo. ;-)"
Rather than jump to cheap shots, use some logic. Are you suggesting that ABC rigged its poll to show support for President Bush? Actually, it's more likely that support for W on this is much higher, given the anti-Bush bias of most polling.
"No, the words are not true."
Excellent response.
You can justify anything you wish if you try hard enough.
Believe what you will.
I'm as free as I've always been. It's a lie that we're sacrificing our freedom for protection.
I'll tell you how we'll sacrifice our freedom: by allowing the terrorists to win. You do understand that their goal is literally the destruction of Western civilization, don't you?
I insist that my government protect my freedom by watching the terrorists so they can be more effective in their fight against them.
I'm not suggesting that the poll numbers are rigged. I just think that it's ironic that a large contingent of Freepers jump on the poll bash bandwagon whenever a poll reports results they don't like, but "good" poll results are accepted uncritically.
Sometimes even a rifle with a bad sight can help you shoot a bear.
As I posted earlier, we've sacrificed no freedom, yet. Those who take the position that we should cripple our attempts to fight our real enemy (Islamic terrorists) rather than their imagined enemy (The Bush Administration) are the ones trying to sacrifice our freedom to Al Qaeda types.
I try my best to ignore polls altogther. They're noise disguised as fact.
That's right. If those of you who want to hamstring the government from fighting our very real enemy have their way, it will eventually be controlled by AL QAEDA!
People have been lulled into forgetting what this is all about.
In other words, "Sorry, you lose"?
A lot of people may have lost and don't yet realize it.
The terrorists can win simply by making us destroy ourselves out of fear.
I insist that my government protect my freedom
I insist that my government protect my freedom from itself. Unfortunately, that is sort of the fox guarding the hen house.
Yeah, and if Hillary had her finger on the nuclear button she might bomb Crawford, Texas too. But disarming the United States of America is not the solution to that particular problem.
We are all welcome to believe whatever we wish.
Likewise we can chose to trust or not to trust those who claim to represent us.
It is my opinion that the constitution is quite clear regarding the right to privacy. So apparently, we disagree.
But just ask yourself, would you be so quick to capitulate if the president were named clinton?
In a fascist state maybe. This country was founded on the ideals of liberty, not security. The Declaration of Independence mentions security once, in the context of securing our freedom from an oppressive government. The Constitution mentions our security in the context of securing our liberty.
In other words, by insisting during wartime on total privacy over matters such as phone records, etc.,
Not total privacy. The Constitution explicitly stated where and how the government can intrude on our privacy.
No truth is absolute, and if you were stupid enough to think someone always lied, you'd be laughably easy to manipulate.
It's not a question of whether polls are inherently good or evil; it's a question of which you trust more: a poll, or the voices in Chris Matthews' head.
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.